Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Imprisonment of Members

Mr. Speaker: I have been informed that Mr. William Ross, Mr. Clifford Forsythe, the Rev. Martin Smyth, and Mr. Harold McCusker were yesterday sentenced to terms of imprisonment of seven days. I shall cause the appropriate details of their offences to be published in the Votes and Proceedings and in the Official Report.
On Monday I notified the House that I had been informed that Mr. Peter Robinson, the hon. Member for Belfast, East, had been imprisoned for a period of 30 days. I am now informed that the sentence was one of seven days. I shall cause the corrected information to be published in the Votes and Proceedings and in the Official Report.
Following are the relevant letters from the Belfast magistrates' courts:
Dear Mr. Speaker
William Ross, Member of Parliament for Londonderry East, was convicted by me at Belfast Petty Sessions on 11 December 1987, of taking part in a public procession, contrary to Article 3 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. I fined him £20·00, to be paid within 28 days.
As that fine has not been paid Mr. Ross was today committed to Prison for a period of 7 days.
Yours faithfully
C. P. McRandal
Resident Magistrate
Dear Mr. Speaker
John Clifford Forsythe, Member of Parliament for South Antrim, was convicted by me at Belfast Petty Sessions on 11 December 1987, of taking part in a public procession, contrary to Article 3 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. I fined him £20.00, to be paid within 28 days.
As that fine has not been paid Mr. Forsythe was today committed to Prison for a period of 7 days.
Yours faithfully.
C.P. McRandal
Resident Magistrate.
Dear Mr. Speaker
Martin William Smyth, Member of Parliament for Belfast South, was convicted by me at Belfast Petty Sessions on 11 December 1987, of taking part in a public procession, contrary to Article 3 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. I fined him £20.00, to be paid within 28 days.
As that fine has not been paid Mr. Smyth was today committed to Prison for a period of 7 days
Yours faithfully,
C. P. McRandal
Resident Magistrate.
Dear Mr. Speaker,
Harold McCusker, Member of Parliament for Upper Bann, was convicted by me at Belfast Petty Sessions on 11 December 1987, of taking part in a public procession, contrary to Article 3 of the Public Order (Northern Ireland) Order 1987. I fined him £20.00, to be paid within 28 days.
As that fine has not been paid Mr. McCusker was today committed to Prison for a period of 7 days.
Yours faithfully,
C. P. McRandal
Resident Magistrate.
Dear Mr Speaker
PETER ROBINSON, MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT FOR BELFAST EAST
On 17 February 1988, I sent you a letter signed by Mr F G Harty, Resident Magistrate, stating that Mr Robinson had been committed to Prison for a period of 30 days. I have now learned that he was in fact committed to Prison that day for a period of seven days only. I now enclose the appropriate letter signed by Mr M D McHugh, Resident Magistrate.
I regret very much this unfortunate error and apologise for any confusion it may have caused you. It occurred because Mr Robinson was apparently apprehended by the Police in respect of both unpaid fines at the same time. He paid one and was committed to Prison in respect of the other.
Yours faithfully
T V Patton
Clerk of Petty Sessions
Dear Mr. Speaker,
Peter Robinson, Member of Parliament for Belfast East, was convicted by me at Belfast Petty Sessions on 3 December 1987 of using on a road a mechanically propelled vehicle which was not exhibiting a licence in respect of that use contrary to section 12(4) of the Vehicles (Excise) Act (NI) 1972. I fined him £25, to be paid within 28 days.
As that fine has not been paid Mr. Robinson was today committed to Prison for a period of seven days.
Maurice D. McHugh
Resident Magistrate

PRIVATE BUSINESS

KEBLE COLLEGE OXFORD BILL [Lords]

SELWYN COLLEGE CAMBRIDGE BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time, and passed, without amendment.

LONDON REGIONAL TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question 10 December], That the Bill be now considered.
Debate further adjourned till Thursday 3 March.

TEIGNMOUTH QUAY COMPANY BILL (By Order)

YORK CITY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

ASSOCIATED BRITISH PORTS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)

CARDIFF BAY BARRAGE BILL (By Order)

CITY OF LONDON (SPITALFIELDS MARKET) BILL
(By Order)

FALMOUTH CONTAINER CARGO TERMINAL BILL
(By Order)

NORTH KILLINGHOLME CARGO TERMINAL BILL
(By Order)

ST. GEORGE'S HILL, WEYBRIDGE, ESTATE BILL
(By Order)

SOUTHERN WATER AUTHORITY BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 3 March.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTHERN IRELAND

Mr. Speaker: Question Number 1, Mr. Harold McCusker.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It was a mistake to have read that out, as I have just read an announcement that the hon. Gentleman is unable to be present.

Stalker/Sampson Report

Mr. Clay: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the disciplinary proceedings of the Royal Ulster Constabulary following events reported in the Stalker/Sampson report.

Mr. Archer: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he has discussed with the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary relevant issues arising from the Stalker/Sampson report.

Mr. Mallon: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has any discussions during the past three weeks with the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in relation to incidents which were investigated by Mr. Stalker and Mr. Sampson.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): As the House will be aware, the first part of my statement on 17 February dealt with the aspect of possible disciplinary proceedings as a result of the investigations carried out by Mr. Stalker and Mr. Sampson. I undertook to inform the House of further developments.
As I also told the House on 17 February, I have discussed the relevant aspects of the Stalker-Sampson

inquiry report with the Chief Constable. In particular, he has accepted in principle all the recommendations made by Mr. McLachlan.

Mr. Clay: How can the Secretary of State claim any credibility for the disciplinary proceedings when senior officers who have perverted the course of justice are still in command? John Stalker was suspended as soon as any accusation was made against him. Given that the E4A unit was responsible for murder — [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw"] — will the right hon. Gentleman suspend from duty the man described by Stalker as
the senior police officer with the bulging briefcase,
the man who set up the unit, Assistant Chief Constable Trevor Forbes, head of the Northern Ireland special branch?

Mr. King: What I could hear of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question consisted partly of a farrago of stories gathered from various press sources, for which I am not sure how much authenticity he would claim.

Mr. Cryer: It is true.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Allow the Secretary of State to answer.

Mr. King: I do not accept the original premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. Matters concerning ranks of chief superintendent and below are the responsibility of the Chief Constable. Mr. Charles Kelly and his team have already started work and are in the Province now. The more senior ranks are a matter for the police authority. I can inform the House that Sir Philip Myers is already in touch with the authority.

Mr. Archer: May I ask the Secretary of State a question that I asked him on 17 February, which escaped him in the course of his answer? Since we all agree that the RUC cannot operate effectively without the confidence of the public, and since the right hon. Gentleman is now seeking to resolve that unhappy episode, would it not be wise to inject an independent element into the inquiries so that it cannot be said that this is merely police officers being investigated by yet more police officers?

Mr. King: With respect to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the last thing that Northern Ireland and the police need are further inquiries of the length and scale that the right hon. and learned Gentleman might have in mind; there has already been an exhaustive inquiry. I made it clear to the House that there was no question of Mr. Stalker's work being suppressed. His work and that of the bulk of his team was available to Mr. Sampson, and that work was carried through. It is necessary to bring these disciplinary matters to an independent conclusion with the arrival of Mr. Kelly and with the appointment of a police authority to tackle its responsibilities.

Mr. Mallon: As the deputy chief constable of Greater Manchester, Mr. John Stalker, was suspended for the most spurious of reasons while investigating matters in the north of Ireland, does the Secretary of State not find it a curious contradiction that the Chief Constable of the RUC, who is under inquiry by the Northern Ireland Police Authority, remains on duty directing that force? Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the expressions of absolute confidence in the Chief Constable of the RUC by the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister must inevitably prejudge the findings of the inquiry?

Mr. King: It is vital that the House remembers—it owes it to the RUC—that the events giving rise to these difficulties occurred in 1982. Before the reports and action of the Attorney-General, many hon. Members in all parts of the House paid tribute to the impartiality and determination of the RUC and to the courage that it showed in doing its work. I hope that hon. Members will not forget those words and that they will recognise that the credit for a substantial amount of the improvements that have taken place over the years must inevitably be given to the man who has led the force during that period.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to answer the question that was put to him last week by the representative of the police body in the House, namely that those police officers who were brought to court and charged with murder but who were found not guilty will not be tried or disciplined again under the present inquiry? Does he agree that it is wrong for hon. Members to pick out police officers and name them without substantiating the charge being made against them?

Mr. King: While I do not wish to imply that those officers will be affected, I must say that it is now Mr. Kelly's responsibility. Mr. Kelly and Mr. Jones, who is the Deputy Chief Constable, are working very actively with their team on this matter and it would be wrong for me to anticipate their findings. What I do know—I think that the hon. Gentleman also knows this—is that there is great feeling in Northern Ireland, after all the years that this matter has taken, that it is important to resolve it at the earliest possible date. With regard to this matter, I do not wish to comment on individual cases.

Mr. Kilfedder: The Secretary of State has paid tribute to the RUC. Is he aware that the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, who for 20 years have been subjected to a brutal and callous terrorist campaign, have the utmost confidence in the RUC? They view it with the greatest pride and treasure the memories of those RUC officers who have been murdered violently by the Irish Republican Army.

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman may recall my closing remarks when I was announcing the disciplinary procedure. I said:
This is a particular tragedy for a police force of the courage and professionalism of the RUC today, who have given ample recent evidence of their commitment to protecting the whole community from violence from whatever extreme it may come." — [Official Report, 17 February 1988; Vol. 127, c. 980.]
I stand by those words.

Mr. Soames: I warmly welcome the steps that my right hon. Friend announced a short time ago. However, will he accept that there was a degree of amazement at the response of the Republic of Ireland, which considers that the Government somehow preside over a banana republic in which the judiciary can be affected by a political decision? Will he at once lay to rest any such suggestion?

Mr. King: I am seeking to address some of the differences of view both on the Benches in this House and on the Benches in Dublin. The discussions that we had yesterday were most useful in that respect. These are very difficult issues and anyone who approaches them must

honestly be conscious of the extraordinarily different—indeed, totally different—views on a number of issues. We are seeking a rather better common understanding.

Mr. Maginnis: Will the Secretary of State more firmly refute the allegation made by the hon. Member for Sunderland, North (Mr. Clay), who suggested that the police were guilty of murder? Will he confirm that the police who were tried for murder were found not guilty, and will he also tell the House how he intends to deal with the situation where John Stalker, at a time when he was supposed to be carrying out an objective investigation into the RUC, was in fact communicating with the Manchester Evening News, conjecturing as to when Sir John Hermon might retire and suggesting that Mr. Anderton might like to succeed him? He later showed how subjective he was when he suggested that he, himself, was doing such a magnificent job that he might succeed Sir John Hermon as Chief Constable of the RUC. Is that not a disgraceful demonstration of unprofessional conduct by a man placed in a trusted position?

Mr. King: As I made clear to the House in my statement, much of the work done and various recommendations that I announced flowed from the inquiry carried out by Mr. Stalker and his team and all the recommendations were accepted in principle by the Chief Constable. I must add, however, that certain other aspects of the inquiry give cause for concern—not least what appeared in The Guardian, if it was correct—about the degree of confidentiality that was preserved. I am also concerned about the recent letter of a superintendent on Mr. Stalker's team and about the anxiety of a number of members of that team about the number of leaks during the inquiry.

Mr. Bill Walker: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the special branch in Ulster carries out its duties with great courage and at no small risk and that we should show our appreciation of that? Will he also confirm that those killed in the original incidents were given funerals with full military honours by the IRA?

Mr. King: On the latter point, that was certainly true in some cases. Undoubtedly, the special branch has performed outstanding service in Northern Ireland. It has saved very many lives in the security forces and among the general population. At the same time, as I made clear in my statement, it cannot be a force within a force. There were things that needed changing after 1982, and I believe that those changes have been understood. It is very important that, in the final analysis, whichever part of the police force a person may belong to, he is ultimately accountable.

Mr. McNamara: I am sure also that the whole House will agree with the last sentence of the Secretary of State. I am sure also that the right hon. Gentleman will recall the comment of Sir John Hermon that the family tree incident was "untrue and deeply offensive". If it was untrue, it was certainly deeply offensive. The Secretary of State will also recall that Mr. Stalker said:
It is supportable by evidence".
Does the Secretary of State agree that this is no longer a private matter between two very senior and experienced police officers, but that the integrity of both of them is now at issue and that, in the interests of the police, it is essential that Mr. Stalker should now put his evidence into the public domain?

Mr. King: I should like to think a bit more about what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am not at all sure that I think that it is anything other than a private matter,. It is a most regrettable matter, and I do not want to enter into judgments upon it.

Security

Mr. Latham: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will make a statement on the security situation.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what improvements have been made in cross-border co-operation, to deal with the terrorist threat, in the last 12 months.

Mr. Tom King: Since I last answered questions in the House on 28 January, three members of the Ulster Defence Regiment and one civilian have died. The House will be aware that, sadly, two of those were the members who were killed last night close to the centre of Belfast.
The threat remains high, but the courageous and determined efforts of the security forces are continuing to yield results. In particular, they have recovered a number of significant caches of arms and ammunition thought to have belonged to both Loyalist and Republican terrorist organisations.
So far this year 34 people have been charged with serious offences and 222 weapons, 63,000 rounds of ammunition and 3921b of explosives have been recovered in Northern Ireland. In addition, already this year the Garda Siochana has made a number of very significant finds of arms and ammunition. These include some 125 weapons, 80,000 rounds of ammunition and almost 6001b of commercial explosives.

Mr. Latham: Following yet another statement from my right hon. Friend about atrocities and murders, is he aware that some Conservative Members voted for the Anglo-Irish agreement, which we have always supported, and that we have looked to it to improve border security, but that if it does not continue to do so we shall have to think again?

Mr. King: I note what my hon. Friend said. Perhaps he could explain to me how we are likely to do better in border security if we do not co-operate closely with the Government of the Irish Republic, because that defeats me. We face a serious threat in Northern Ireland at the moment which is considerably enhanced because of the involvement of new weapons which it is believed, on good grounds, come from Libya. That threat is clearly not just to Northern Ireland, but to the whole island of Ireland. In those circumstances, the closest co-operation with the Government of the Irish Republic is absolutely essential.

Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the remarkable success of the French and Spanish authorities in dealing with the Basque separatist movement through close co-operation? Will he assure the House that the respective heads of police from the North and South will meet shortly to improve coordination? Is he aware that he will have nothing but the full support of Conservative Members if he can achieve coordination between North and South on a far more advanced and sophisticated basis than over the past decade?

Mr. King: As my hon. Friend will appreciate, one can look at some of the figures that I was able to announce to the House about the success of the Garda Siochana. I am afraid that part of that is due to the scale of arms and explosives that may be present in the island of Ireland, but it is also a clear indication of the substantial commitment that it has been making on this matter.
I hope that we shall have an early conference — I think that we shall have a full conference—and, as I have said, I want to include cross-border security matters and to see the closest co-operation between the Chief Constable and the Commissioner. I make no secret of that fact, because it is most important. Because the RUC and the Garda are in the lead, they must co-operate closely in this, which they do.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the Secretary of State appreciate that complete confusion has arisen in Northern Ireland from the events of the past four weeks, and does he recognise that we do not know who to believe? Following the meeting in Dublin yesterday the Secretary of State announced that the Commissioner of the Garda Siochana would be meeting the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary at the next meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference, but the Dublin Government immediately contradicted that statement. Who are we to believe?

Mr. King: If there is any confusion, I am sure that I can rely on the right hon. Gentleman to try to help us to clear it up. I am sure that he will play a leading part in that.
I made it clear that we had an excellent meeting yesterday. I think that the Tánaiste, Mr. Lenihan, and I found it valuable to discuss a number of issues. On the right hon. Gentleman's particular point, it is agreed—he will see this if he reads the communiqué — that there should be a full meeting of the conference in the near future. I have made it clear that I should like that to involve cross-border security operation. There is clearly some misunderstanding on the question of participation, but I intend to see whether that can be resolved at the earliest opportunity.

Mr. Alton: Following the shooting of Aidan McAnespie by a young 19-year-old British soldier, and the release after three years of Private Thain, who himself was a young man when he was involved in the killing of another person, does the Secretary of State agree that the policy of putting young military personnel into sensitive security positions should be looked at again? Will he also accept that we on these Benches strongly believe that the Anglo-Irish Agreement should be consolidated and strengthened, and is the best way to proceed in fighting terrorism?

Mr. King: The House will recognise the heavy obligations and responsibilities that are laid on the security forces, and that is particularly so for young new members of regiments. The mainly outstanding way in which they have discharged those responsibilities is a tribute to the training and calibre of the troops that have served in Northern Ireland over the years. If anyone should ask why that soldier was in that sangar at that time, I would only say that every road block, vehicle checkpoint and watchtower in Northern Ireland exists thanks to the IRA and the terrorist.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Following the brutal murder last night of two members of the Ulster Defence Regiment,


have the Government of the Irish Republic informed the Secretary of State whether they have any desire to hold an inquiry into those two deaths? Have the Government of the Irish Republic given any knowledge to the Secretary of State's office that they intend to hold an emergency debate in the Dail over those two deaths? Have the Government of the Irish Republic requested a special meeting of the Intergovernmental Conference as a result of those two deaths? If they have not, does the Secretary of State think that that is indicative of their political bias?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman makes the political point that he wishes to make in that contribution. I would merely add that the Irish Government have at no time suggested holding an inquiry into an affair in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Hume: Given the recent decision to release Private Thain, which most reasonable people would believe strains the normal limits of compassion, will the Secretary of State accept from me, and many others who were politically involved in the early 1970s, that in that highly emotive period, when sectarian conflict was at its height and when 60,000 people changed homes in Belfast because of that sectarian conflict—the biggest movement in peacetime Europe—and with all the atrocities committed at that time, such as Bloody Sunday, and so on, it is understandable that young people from both sections of the community were sucked into the terrible violence, for which they are serving long sentences? In the light of the decision relating to Private Thain, would not normal compassion demand that we show the same compassion to all those young people? If the Secretary of State were to do that, it would have a powerful beneficial impact on the security and political situation in Northern Ireland.

Mr. King: The only qualification that I would make is that it would be wrong to equate the position of a soldier serving his country in Northern Ireland in a particular position with that of a young person of the same age who may have been involved in a terrorist purpose. None the less, I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's point that young people who may easily be influenced by older people found themselves drawn into a situation which they now bitterly regret. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State looks at these cases carefully, bearing in mind the youth of the person involved. Of course, the very nature of "Secretary of State's pleasure" cases means that a person must have been under 18 when the crime was committed. We do look sympathetically at such cases, but we must obviously take into account the risk of reinvolvement.

Mr. Stanbrook: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, where there is terrorism on both sides of a common frontier, one might well expect the maximum degree of cooperation in dealing with that terrorism, whether or not there is in existence something called the Anglo-Irish Agreement?

Mr. King: I certainly believe that it is in the interests of both our countries. It is significant that, in spite of the recent difficulties and tensions over certain problems, the Taoiseach, Mr. Haughey, has made it clear that, although there may be an impasse on one or two particular issues, there is certainly no impasse on close cross-border security co-operation. That is in the interests of both our countries. Mr. Haughey has spelt that out in the Dail, and I never cease to spell it out in this House.

Mr. Flannery: Does the Secretary of State realise that when double standards are seen to prevail, as in the case of Private Thain—which he appears to dismiss rather too lightly in my opinion—that strengthens the hand of terrorism, because the terrorists see that what happens on one side does not happen on the other? Was not a group of people let out in that case, rather than just one person? Is it not a disgraceful situation, and will it not strengthen the IRA?

Mr. King: I have tried to explain the background in response to the question of the hon. Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume), and I cannot add much to that. I am sympathetic, as is the House, to very young people who find themselves caught up in the web of terrorism early in life, but the House must also have regard—and I should be failing in my responsibilities if I did not take account of this—to the risk of reinvolvement of people who are released. I must consider that carefully, as complaints would soon arise if we took the wrong decisions.

Mr. Mates: Does my right hon. Friend accept that Conservative Members note with great satisfaction the enormous improvement in security since the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed, particularly as reflected in the huge finds of arms and ammunitions on both sides of the border, and in the increase in the number of arrests on both sides of the border for terrorist offences? Does he agree with me that, if the Anglo-Irish Agreement and the Conference had not been in place, the very difficult times through which we have been in the past three or four weeks would have been a great deal worse?

Mr. King: I certainly accept that. There have been difficulties in the history of the relationship of this country with the island of Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Mr. Lenihan and I recognised yesterday, at our meeting, the benefit that is now coming from the working relationship and the understanding that have developed. I repeat the phrase that I used—we do not speak the same language, but we are beginning to learn to translate. That is important if we are to have a happier future.

Mr. McNamara: Is the Secretary of State aware that the Minister in charge of day-to-day security in Northern Ireland is the Minister who has returned Private Thain to the Army? Is he further aware that that Minister was also responsible for refusing a request to furnish the Fair Employment Agency with a reference supplied by a Catholic seeking a job on HMS Caroline, so that the Belfast Recorder said that, in all probability, he had refused to disclose the reference because the man was a Roman Catholic, and found the Ministry of Defence guilty of unlawful discrimination? In those circumstances, does the Secretary of State agree with The Daily Telegraph that that casts most serious doubts about his judgment as a Minister, particularly in the Northern Ireland Office?

Mr. King: As the hon. Gentleman has made that personal attack, he owed it to the House to be better informed of his facts before he made it. It gives me the opportunity to tell the hon. Gentleman and the House that the matters contained in the second half of the editorial to which he referred are not true.

County Down (Hospitals)

Mr. McGrady: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if, in view of the recent announcements


on cash limits, he will take steps to ensure that the residents of South Down served by the Down group of hospitals will not be deprived of any of the minimum medical facilities which are at present available to them.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Richard Needham): The Eastern health and social services board has recently issued a detailed consultative document on options for changes to the pattern of services in its area, including South Down. Since the board itself has not yet reached any conclusions, it would not be right for me to comment at this stage.

Mr. McGrady: Is the Minister aware of the statement in the House yesterday by the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, about the biggest ever capital investment programme in the National Health Service for Scotland? Will he compare that with the draconian cuts and severe budget restrictions imposed on national health in Northern Ireland? In those circumstances, will he reconsider his Budget proposals for 1988–89 for NHS provision in Northern Ireland?

Mr. Needham: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern on this question of the Down services. This is the second time that we have been able to discuss the matter today. I have told him that I will consider most carefully any proposals from the board. I must point out that, as he is well aware, the level of health provision in Northern Ireland is second to none in the whole of the United Kingdom.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the serious concern in Northern Ireland about the way that he is handling hospitals? Is he also aware that if he continues on this line hospitalisation will be very difficult? It is not one section but the entire community that is suffering. I have taken an interest in the case that is before the House. It is not good enough for the Minister to tell us that it is a matter for the board. When he takes money away from the board, how can it make any other decision?

Mr. Needham: Rather than damaging the Health Service in Northern Ireland, the hon. Gentleman should accept that the level of provision of health care is higher in Northern Ireland than elsewhere in the United Kingdom, as it ought to be. While I accept that it creates problems for the Health Service, the provision of 5·2 per cent. additional funds this year is the absolute maximum that can be afforded because of the pressures of the law and order budget and unemployment.

Mr. John D. Taylor: In considering any changes in hospital provision within the Eastern board's area, will the Minister always bear in mind that the most rapidly increasing population is in the Bangor-Newtownards part of the area?

Mr. Needham: I am sure that the Eastern health board will take that into account when it considers the options.

Harland and Wolff (AORI Contract)

Mr. Nicholas Brown: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he has now made any public subsidy available in relation to the AOR1 contract at Harland and Wolff.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Viggers): No, Sir.

Mr. Brown: In view of the Minister's predictable answer, will he assure the House that the Government are not in breach of the EEC sixth directive on shipbuilding, which must apply to Harland and Wolff as it does to other merchant shipyards? In the light of press speculation in Monday's Belfast Telegraph, can he make a statement to the House on the future of Harland and Wolff?

Mr. Viggers: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that Harland and Wolff must comply with the EC sixth directive. I saw the speculative story to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The position has not changed in recent weeks. The future of the yard will depend upon its ability to win orders—this, too, has not changed in recent weeks — within the constraints of the EC sixth directive, which limits Government subsidy on merchant shipping orders to 28 per cent.

Mr. Maginnis: Does the Minister agree that there is a difference between orders for merchant ships and orders for ships for the Royal Navy, the first category being eligible for subsidy, whereas the second is not? Will he tell the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) that it is time he realised that if the AOR2 had been allocated on merit, perhaps Swan Hunter would not have received the contract and it would have gone properly to Harland and Wolff, as the AOR1 did?

Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman has made his own point to the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown). The hon. Gentleman is right about shipbuilding orders. The EC sixth directive relates to merchant shipbuilding orders. I am pleased that Harland and Wolff has now virtually completed the ATS vessel, which should be delivered shortly to the Ministry of Defence. Of course, the AOR1 is also under construction in the yard.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Will the Minister tell the House that it is the view of the Northern Ireland Office that Harland and Wolff has been making determined efforts to better its lot in the shipbuilding industry? What is his Department doing to ensure that the speculation in recent newspaper reports will not come about.

Mr. Viggers: We congratulate Harland and Wolff on the efforts that it has made to improve its performance, but its future will depend on its ability to win further shipbuilding orders within the constraints to which I have referred.

Mr. Jim Marshall: May I press the Minister further on the future of Harland and Wolff? He will be aware that in the Belfast Telegraph on Monday of this week there was an article which said that closure was an option being considered by the Government. Will the Minister take the opportunity to deny that closure is on the cards? As the Minister knows, the economic future of Belfast and of Northern Ireland will be disastrous if the shipyard is closed. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. May I ask hon. Members not to carry on private conversations?

Mr. Viggers: I have already said in my response to the initial question that the position has not changed in recent weeks. The future of the yard must depend on management's ability to win orders. That is not the Government's responsibility. It is the responsibility of management, and we support it in its search.

School Statistics

Mr. Anthony Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of schools in Northern Ireland have a selective intake; and what percentage of school leavers in each sector achieve five or more higher grade O-levels or equivalent.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): In most areas of Northern Ireland pupils are selected for grammar or secondary intermediate school education on the basis of a transfer test undertaken at age 11. Twenty-nine per cent. of the secondary schools in Northern Ireland are grammar schools and 71 per cent. are secondary intermediate schools. The percentages with five or more higher grade O-levels are 83 and 14 respectively.

Mr. Coombs: Does my hon. Friend agree that the figures that he has given, in overall terms and indeed for pupils in non-selective schools, are significantly higher than for many authorities in England and Wales? Does he also agree that the more flexible, less ideological and more pragmatic attitude towards selective education in Northern Ireland contains important lessons for those who wish to raise standards in England and Wales?

Dr. Mawhinney: The Government are committed to raising standards in schools throughout the United Kingdom. I can confirm that in Northern Ireland 36 per cent. of school leavers have five or more good grade O-levels, as compared with 27 per cent. in England and Wales. I have to tell my hon. Friend, however, that in Northern Ireland those who leave school with no qualifications at all represent 22 per cent. of the pupils, whereas the figure in England and Wales is 10 per cent. That is obviously a matter of concern, and we must have responsibility for children's education and the raising of educational standards right across the education spectrum.

Ms. Short: Is the Minister not concerned that 71 per cent. of children in Northern Ireland go to secondary schools, where they have only a 14 per cent. chance of obtaining significant O-level passes? Does that not mean that the bulk of children are not receiving real opportunities in secondary education? Will he reconsider the position?

Dr. Mawhinney: I do not accept what the hon. Lady has said. We seek in Northern Ireland to run a school system that maximises children's potential. It is a mistake to assume that the only children worth educating are those who are intellectually bright. All children have the potential for development, and we try to run a school system that produces that development.

Mr. Kilfedder: The religious apartheid that exists in education in Northern Ireland—two systems supported by the taxpayer—cruelly divides young people during their formative years when they should be getting to know each other, and learning together. Will the Minister, who has already done considerable work in this regard, provide further money for the integrated schools in Northern Ireland, which provide a good academic education?

Dr. Mawhinney: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the commitment that he has expressed over such a long period to seeking to educate the children of Northern Ireland together, or at least in closer association than in

the past. He knows that we are trying to be as helpful as possible, in a variety of ways, to reduce the present divide between the children.

Sex Discrimination Order

Ms. Mowlam: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many replies he has received to his request for observations on the draft Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order.

Mr. Viggers: The answer is 27.

Ms. Mowlam: Will the Minister state his own commitment to equal opportunities for woman in Northern Ireland, and will he amend the draft order so that it is in line with European legislation?

Mr. Viggers: The Government are committed to equality of opportunity in Northern Ireland, as in the rest of the United Kingdom. We think it right, however, that promotion of equality of opportunity in relation to gender in Northern Ireland should be handled as it is in the rest of the United Kingdom.
As for our own commitment in Northern Ireland, I am pleased to inform the hon. Lady that funding compares very favourably with that of the Equal Opportunities Commission in Great Britain. It was increased by 11 per cent. in the year before last, and by 9 per cent. in the current year.

Kilroot Power Station

Mr. Foulkes: To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what decision he has made regarding phase II of Kilroot power station.

Mr. Viggers: So many hon. Members are not here, for various reasons, that it has been quite difficult to keep pace with the questions.

Mr. Speaker: It is quite understandable.

Mr. Viggers: Revised bids for the provision of new generating capacity, including the completion of Kilroot phase II, were received from Northern Ireland Electricity and Antrim Power Company Ltd. at the end of January 1988. The revised proposals are currently being examined and until that process has been completed the Government will not be in a position to make a decision on future generating capacity.

Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful for that reply—eventually. I hope that the Minister will be rather more expeditious when considering the various options for Kilroot power station. I hope that he will bear in mind that Northern Ireland Electricity wants to convert phase II to coal and that that will also be very important for the coal industry in Ayrshire, particularly the area that I represent. I hope that, as a penance for his appalling delay in answering my question, he will agree that it ought to be converted to coal and give a long-term guarantee that that coal will come from Ayrshire.

Mr. Viggers: The hon. Gentleman is quite correct in saying that the availability of the completion of Kilroot power station with coal provides an attractive option for Northern Ireland. But there is a further attractive option for Northern Ireland, and that is the indigenous brown lignite resource. We are considering very carefully whether coal or lignite is the appropriate resource for future


generating capacity, and whether, if brown lignite is the choice, it should be through NIE or through the private bid which has been submitted to us.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Couchman: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 February.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Couchman: I recognise that my right hon. Friend, in her pre-eminent position as First Lord of the Treasury, will not share any Budget secrets with the House today. Nevertheless, will she confirm that she has impressed on her right hon. Friend the Chancellor that the experience of the last nine years shows that there is nothing contradictory or irreconcilable about raising tax thresholds, lowering tax rates and increasing public expenditure, notably on the National Health Service, in the sensible and prudent way that we have done and that we discussed last night? Is it not a fact that a low-tax economy increases incentive and productivity and ultimately leads to a higher tax yield for the services that we all desire?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree with my hon. Friend. Lowering direct taxes is an essential part of getting the growth that we have seen over the last few years and therefore getting the resources to spend on such things as the National Health Service and increased nurses' pay. We also have to remember that nurses, too, pay income tax, and that when a nurse on £170 a week knows that she pays £46 a week in tax and national insurance contributions together she is not going to say that she wants taxes to be kept at that level. She would much prefer to have more net take-home pay through reduced taxation.

Mr. Kinnock: If the banning of organisations completely dedicated to securing peaceful change in South Africa does not make the Prime Minister stop her pathetic appeasement of apartheid, what will?

The Prime Minister: We do not appease apartheid in any way. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, we spend considerable sums of money in helping black South Africans to get the education that some of them might otherwise not get, and on helping security in the front-line states. I wish to make it quite clear that I condemn the latest move by President Botha to suppress free argument and debate. It will be a great setback to the possibility of peaceful negotiations. However, the application of universal sanctions would not improve, but only make worse, a very difficult situation.

Mr. Kinnock: When the Prime Minister's words of condemnation are mocked by the Botha regime and held in contempt by the victims of that regime, is it not plain to everyone that those words deserve that contempt and encourage further repression by those in charge of apartheid? When Bishop Tutu says that South Africa is heading for war, and when her own Foreign Secretary says

that he thinks that the latest bannings make violence more likely, why does she not convene the Security Council, press for comprehensive sanctions and make an effort that is really worth while?

The Prime Minister: We do not make a difficult situation any easier by adding to it starvation and poverty for those whom we wish to help.

Mr. Neil Thorne: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Thorne: Will my right hon. Friend condemn the actions of those head-in-the-sand trade union leaders in the National Health Service in Scotland who led the strike yesterday, against the interests of the patients who could benefit enormously from the extra funds that would become available if the Health Service in Scotland had the benefit of the privatisation of services that applies to the Health Service in England?

The Prime Minister: Yes. It was a political strike in Scotland yesterday on the part of the nurses. Competitive tendering in England has released some £100 million a year that will go direct to extra patient care. It is appalling that there are people in Scotland who would rather waste money than save it by competitive tendering, and thus have more money to spend on patient care. We utterly condemn that strike, which led to about 400 operations being postponed.

Mr. Steel: Will the Prime Minister explain to the House how the current cuts in the family planning provisions in the Health Service will save money in the long run, given that the likely result will be greater occupancy of maternity beds or more abortions?

The Prime Minister: I hope that those who need and want such advice will continue to take it. I do not believe that any changes would have the effect that the right hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hughes: Will my right hon. Friend join me in condemning the murder last night of two members of the Ulster Defence Regiment and the return of terror tactics to the centre of Belfast? Does she agree that if foreign Governments wish to look at the security forces in Northern Ireland, they also should look at the use of the bomb-to-kill policy of Republican terrorists?

The Prime Minister: It is a tragedy that two more members of the Ulster Defence Regiment were killed last night, bringing the number of the security forces killed in Northern Ireland this year to six, in addition to the 27 who were killed last year. I hope that those who seek to undermine or criticise the security forces will remember the merciless attacks to which they are subjected and be thankful for the work that they do.

Mr. Maginnis: Does the Prime Minister recall how, in the wake of the Enniskillen tragedy, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) urged her to agree


that no one should use the terrible suffering of those people of Enniskillen for political reasons?"— [Official Report, 12 November 1987; Vol. 122, c. 558.]
Does she believe that the same restraint should now be shown in regard to the tragic shooting in Aughnacloy last Sunday? Does she agree that it is unjust, unhelpful and uncharitable for Cardinal O'Fiaich to preach in his pulpit that that incident was murder?

The Prime Minister: Northern Ireland has suffered a great deal of violence, and that violence is continuing. Some individual tragic incidents have come to the public notice more than others. Our task should be the same on both sides of the border —to do everything we can to increase security and reduce the violence, because it is aimed not only at Northern Ireland; it is fundamentally aimed at the future of democracy in the Republic of Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Lady bear in mind what happened in Belfast last night? She will appreciate how I feel today, when I say that one of those young men was a member of my church, engaged to a young lady who is a member of my church, and the last time I spoke to them was to arrange their marriage. The other young man who was murdered last night was from the same district. I ask her to have a word with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland about the circumstances of the killing. Is she aware that a hoarding erected by the Lang company obscured the vision of the patrol, preventing it from seeing what was happening in the Smithfield area? The patrol had made representations to its superior officers about this, and no action was taken. Will she see to it that the matter is thoroughly investigated and that young men who go on duty are listened to?

The Prime Minister: Yes, we understand how the hon. Gentleman feels. He may rest assured that we all feel the same way and express our sympathy to the families of those people, and to the families of those who were injured. I have heard what the hon. Gentleman said about the hoarding. The matter is being thoroughly investigated. I echo the sentiment, which I know he feels, that men of the Ulster Defence Regiment are particularly brave. We really are very fortunate that, whatever happens in Northern Ireland, and whatever the number of tragedies, people are still prepared to volunteer to come forward to protect democracy.

Mr. Eadie: Is the right hon. Lady aware that in Scotland since the general election her party has lost 2 per cent. support, and it was very poor before the general election? Can the right hon. Lady tell us whether it is part of her Government's strategy that we must lose 7,000 jobs in the mining industry as the price of privatisation? Why did she bring in aid the brief supplied by the SSEB, when she knew perfectly well that the matter was about to go to the courts?

The Prime Minister: If one is interested in jobs, and we are—although I note that the Opposition support many strikes aimed at the destruction of jobs and at moving jobs elsewhere—one is interested in each and every industry being highly competitive and able to supply its material to other industries at a world competitive price as delivered to the power stations. I understand that the latter matter has now been set down for a date for hearing and, therefore, I can say nothing further.

Mr. Tim Smith: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in August 1986—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have missed No. 4 I will go back to it after this question.

Mr. Smith: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in August 1986 the National Institute of Economic and Social Research forecast, for the calendar year 1987, growth of 1·8 per cent. and a PSBR of £11 billion? As it is now clear that growth in 1987 was 4·8 per cent. and there was no public sector borrowing requirement at all, will my right hon. Friend advise the Treasury to ignore the latest forecasts from the institute, except perhaps to advise it to buy a new computer?

The Prime Minister: Economic forecasting is, of course, notoriously difficult. I noticed an article in one of last Sunday's newspapers, which compared the actual forecasts with the outturn, and the forecasters did not come off very well. I have noticed the one to which my hon. Friend referred, but I think that it is now well understood and agreed that the most respected forecasts are those of the Treasury, and I am proud to be First Lord of it.

Mr. Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth). Question No. 4.

Mr. George Howarth: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Howarth: Does the Prime Minister agree with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security that families should be urged to forgo a second holiday abroad to fund private health care, or does she join the Labour Benches in urging people to forgo a 1p reduction in tax to secure the health of the whole nation?

The Prime Minister: I am all for families being able to keep a bigger proportion of their own earnings, so that they can make their own choice.

Mr. Lord: Does the Prime Minister agree with me that the hospital matron was unique, in that she was able to deal with consultants and doctors, understood the needs of patients and nurses, and was at the same time able to keep a very careful eye on such basic items as bed linen and bandages? I ask the Prime Minister to look at the matter urgently and reintroduce this valuable post as quickly as possible.

The Prime Minister: Yes. I think that many members of the public regret that there is now no official post of hospital matron, because they believe that it kept up the standard of hospitals in a unique way. It is possible for the head nurse still to have that title in hospital, but that is not quite the same as a post. A number of people have the title. More local health authorities can have it if they so wish. It is a matter that we shall look at in our general review.

Mr. Boyes: To ask the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 25 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Boyes: Is the Prime Minister aware that thousands of pensioners who live in houses with community alarms and similar apparatus, including up to 300 in Sunderland borough, have been waiting months for the NTVLRO to make a decision about whether they qualify for concessionary licences? Will she speed up this process and, further, when she instructs the Chancellor of the

Exchequer what to put in his Budget, will she make sure that he leaves some money so that these folk get what they deserve, a 5p licence for their television?

The Prime Minister: I will of course call the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what the hon. Member for Houghton and Washington (Mr. Boyes) has said. It is not our policy to have 5p television licences for all old-age pensioners, as he knows, although that is the case in certain homes. Such a licence would only put the burden on all other television licence payers.

Business of the House

Mr. Frank Dobson: May I ask the Leader of the House to state the business for next week.
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): Yes, Sir. The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 29 FEBRUARY—Opposition day (9th allotted day). Until about seven o'clock there will be a debate entitled "The Suppression of Majority Rights in South Africa and the Responsibility of the British Government". Afterwards there will be a debate entitled "The Urgent Need to Save British Science". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Norfolk and Suffolk Broads Bill.
Motion relating to the Education (Publication and Consultation Etc.) (Scotland) Amendment Regulations.
TUESDAY 1 MARCH — Until about seven o'clock motions on a social security order and regulations. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Motion on the Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order.
Motion on the annual report from the European Court of Auditors for 1986. Details will be given in the Official Report.
WEDNESDAY 2 MARCH—There will be a debate on Welsh affairs on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motions on the Coal Industry (Restructuring Grants) and (Limit on Deficit Grants) Orders.
THURSDAY 3 MARCH — There will be a debate on the Royal Navy on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 4 MARCH—Private members' motions.
MONDAY 7 MARCH — Debate on a Government motion on the privatisation of the electricity supply industry.
[Debate on Tuesday I March
Relevant Documents.
Unemployment Benefit (Disqualification Period) Order 1988
Social Security (Benefit) (Members of the Forces)
Amendment Regulations 1988 (S.I. 1988, No 269)
Debate on Tuesday 1 March
Relevant European Documents:
Community Document for Debate
OJ C336—Annual Report of Court of Auditors for 1986 Relevant Report of European Legislation Committee HC 43-xiv (1987–88) para 4
The following Documents and reports are also relevant:—


Community Documents


(a) 9392/87
Fight against fraud


(b) 9130/87
Court of Auditors special report on the quota/additional levy system in the milk sector


(c) Unnumbered
Court of Auditors' report on wine distillation schemes



Relevant Reports

(a) HC 43-xv (1987–88) para 5.
(b) HC 43-xi (1987–88) para 7.
(c) HC 43-x (1987–88) para 5.]

Mr. Dobson: I thank the Leader of the House for his statement. The Opposition welcome the fact that there will be an early opportunity in Government time to debate the Government's proposals to increase electricity prices and sell off the electricity supply industry, including nuclear power stations, to private owners.
Can the Leader of the House tell us why the debate on Welsh affairs next week is being held not on St. David's day but the day after?
Will the Leader of the House tell us when we can expect the Select Committee on televising proceedings of the House to get down to work?
Finally, perhaps in an effort to improve order in the House before it is televised, can the Leader of the House tell us whether he is taking steps on the Government side to end the deliberate barracking of Opposition speakers, such as that faced by my hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline, East (Mr. Brown) yesterday, and end the concerted efforts of Conservative Members to take up time in debates so that Opposition Members with direct constituency interests in those debates are excluded from them?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman has asked me three questions. First, I am sorry that it has not proved possible to arrange the debate on Welsh affairs for St. David's day, but, all things considered, I do not believe that we have done too badly.
With regard to televising the House and the establishment of the Select Committee, there are active discussions taking place through the usual channels and with all parts of the House. I hope that we can get that Select Committee set up as soon as possible so that we can get on with things. The hon. Gentleman's criticisms in his third question sound a bit like whingeing and I believe that they are a matter for you, Mr. Speaker, rather than for me.

Mr. Harry Greenway: I wonder whether my right hon. Friend remembers that, last October, I had to go to court, at great expense to myself, to defend the confidentiality of correspondence between myself and a constituent who was involved as a witness in a murder case? Therefore, I wonder whether my right hon. Friend would agree to a debate on the confidentiality of correspondence between Members and their constituents especially given the fact that last week, during the rate-capping debate, at column 1240, the hon. Member for Ealing, Southall (Mr. Bidwell) quoted the contents of a letter sent to me by the director of finance of Ealing council, and evidently copied to the hon. Member without my knowledge, concerning one of my constituents. That letter was a private matter between myself, my constituent and the director of finance and I believe that an important principle was breached, let alone good manners.

Mr. Wakeham: I do remember my hon. Friend's involvement in that matter last October, but I do not believe that I can promise him a debate on that subject. I should have thought that such things were better dealt with by the conventions of the House, that confidential documents should he kept confidential. I should have thought that to proceed in that way was in the best interests of us all.

Mr. James Wallace: May I thank the Leader of the House for agreeing to have the debate on the Scottish education order on the Floor of the House on Monday evening.
Given that a number of timetable motions have been tabled, when does the right hon. Gentleman expect that the House will have an opportunity to debate the reports of the Select Committee on Procedure about timetable motions as well as its recommendations about private Members' business, particularly those relating to the use of petitions?
There have been newspaper reports that the Scottish Select Committee is again being delayed because of the unwillingness of Conservative Members to volunteer to serve on it. Can the Leader of the House say when the House will be able to give instructions to the Committee of Selection to give the go-ahead for the Scottish Select Committee to be established?

Mr. Wakeham: The Procedure Committee has a number of reports outstanding and it is certainly my intention to provide time for a debate on them. At this stage I cannot give a specific undertaking about the timing of that debate, but I believe that it is extremely important that hon. Members on both sides of the House should study those reports before we proceed to a debate.
With regard to the Scottish Select Committee, I have had a helpful letter from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) and I believe that that will enable us to make some further progress.

Mr. Cranky Onslow: Although I agree with my right hon. Friend about the importance of studying the reports of the Procedure Committee before they are debated, does my right hon. Friend also agree that it is extremely important that we have that Committee back in being because there are a number of matters to which it should turn its attention?

Mr. Wakeham: I entirely agree with my right hon. Friend and, indeed, discussions are presently going on through the usual channels to try to get that Committee set up.

Mr. Jack Ashley: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Clerks of the House have said that the Opren drug disaster is not sub judice under the rules of the House? Yet the Government have done nothing to help the 1,300 applicants who have, between them, received a total amount less than was given to one American citizen. Why cannot we debate that issue?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that the right hon. Gentleman and a number of other hon. Members are concerned about this matter, but I cannot promise him an early debate on it. I do not think I can add anything of substance to what I said about it two or three weeks ago.

Mr. Tim Yeo: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, although the report produced yesterday by the Public Accounts Committee on charities says little that people in the charity world have not been saying for a number of years, its publication, coming on top of the recent decision not to prosecute the Moonies, and last year's efficiency review under Sir Philip Woodfield, will have added to the interest in a debate in the House in Government time on charities and the urgent need to tighten the regulations?

Mr. Wakeham: I appreciate that this is an important matter. As my hon. Friend said, the report has only just been published. The Government are considering it and their observations will be published in a Treasury minute in due course. That is the best thing to do first.

Mr. Alex Salmond: When may we expect a statement on Scottish electricity privatisation, which is important not only in itself, but because it is clearly the cause of the impasse and breakdown in relationships between British Coal and the South of Scotland Electricity Board?

Mr. Wakeham: I can confirm that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will be making a statement in the near future.

Mr. Robert B. Jones: In view of the large number of our hon. Friends who have signed the early-day motion on the National Union of Students closed shop, will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking about an early debate on that important subject, as literally hundreds of thousands of people are affected by that petty tyranny?
[That this House welcomes the 1987 Employment Act which introduces legislation that will significantly reverse closed shop arrangements, but notes that hundreds of thousands of students will still have no choice over whether or not they join the National Union of Students; and hopes that the Secretary of State for Education and Science will take action to rectify this anomalous position as soon as possible.]

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that a number of our hon. Friends feel strongly about this. I cannot promise an early debate on the subject, but it seems to me that, with a little ingenuity, it might well be raised on the remaining stages of the Education Reform Bill.

Mr. Frank Cook: Will the Leader of the House recall a matter that I have raised with him during business questions before? I refer to the prayer, tabled as early-day motion No. 499 in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), on the subject of changes in regulations for planning inquiries relating to power stations and overhead power lines.
[That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Electricity Generating Stations and Overhead Lines (Inquiries Procedure) Rules 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 2182), dated 16th December 1987, a copy of which was laid before this House on 18th December, be annulled.]
Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that the praying days for the measure were exhausted on 19 February? Will he give us an assurance that the matter will be debated on the Floor of the House on revocation?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that the time has run out for praying but I do not think that that should necessarily stop us having a debate if one can be agreed through the usual channels. We are trying to work that out at the moment.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: Is the Leader of the House aware that many hon. Members on both sides are concerned about certain parts of the Firearms (Amendment) Bill, and in particular about the lack of provision in it for compensation for shooters who will have their weapons taken away? He will be aware that


the Minister announced a compensation buy-back scheme in Committee after a constructive debate. When will he lay the money resolution?

Mr. Wakeham: The Government are considering the matter. We hope to table a motion as soon as possible, but I can add nothing more to that.

Mr. Ray Powell: Will the Leader of the House reconsider his decision about the Welsh day debate being called for Wednesday? As a foreigner, the Secretary of State may not appreciate the significance of St. David's day to Wales. We do not want our daffodils drooping on Wednesday. We demand a debate on St. David's day; we have been asking for that for years. It is time the Leader of the House appreciated the significance of that day to the people of Wales.

Mr. Wakeham: I am not too sure about all this foreigner nonsense. My father was born in Cardiff and I reckon that makes me more Welsh than some people who consider themselves Welsh. I thought I had done pretty well to hit 2 March; I am sorry if that upsets the hon. Gentleman. I suggest that he finds out how to look after his daffodil.

Mr. William Powell: My right hon. Friend will be aware that diplomatic moves are afoot to advance the peace process in the middle east. Will he, in the light of the considerable interest in the subject that has been shown among hon. Members, arrange for a wide-ranging foreign affairs debate before very long?

Mr. Wakeham: There will clearly be a need for a foreign affairs debate before too long, but I cannot promise one in the immediate future. There will be Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs Questions next Wednesday, so perhaps my hon. Friend could try his luck then.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Will the Leader of the House accept that some of us regard it as an anachronism that there should have to be an annual Welsh day when Parliament should be dealing with our problems all the year round?
On a more substantive matter, will he tell the House of the fate of the Griffiths report? When can we expect a statement? Will he give an assurance that that important report will he published?

Mr. Wakeham: I can think of worse things to do than to debate Welsh affairs in the House all the time. I cannot make a promise on the matter, but I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's question about the Griffiths report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services.

Mr. John Browne: Will my right hon. Friend accept that many people agree with him that space research must take its place with other priorities? None the less, does he agree that the report of the Lord Shackleton illustrates that there are grounds for concern about the United Kingdom's space programme? Surely this subject must be worthy of a full debate in the House.

Mr. Wakeham: It is certainly worthy of debate. The Government would be happy to defend their record on space research, which we consider to be good given all the commitments involved. My hon. Friend might try his hand, subject to you, Mr. Speaker, during Monday's debate on British science when he could raise some of his points then.

Mr. William McKelvey: May I press the Leader of the House to expand slightly on the answer that he gave about the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs? It would ease frustration among Labour Members if we could know whether the right hon. Gentleman will be in a position to put forward Government names for the Committee in the near future.

Mr. Wakeham: To travel hopefully is not always to arrive, but I shall do my best. I had been waiting for a letter from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). I have now received a helpful and constructive letter from him, but I cannot add anything further.

Mr. Michael Colvin: May I renew my call to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House for a debate in Government time on the problems facing the civil aviation industry? Last Monday, we had a good run for our money on the subject of air safety, which highlighted the need for a debate on that topic. By 31 March, the Civil Aviation Authority will require comments on its review of air licensing policy. It seems quite wrong for decisions to be made on that subject until the House has had a proper opportunity to discuss all the issues involved.

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in these important matters. I wish that I could help him by promising a debate in the near future. Unfortunately, there are many conflicting calls on our time. The chairman of the Civil Aviation Authority is actively reviewing the procedure for investigating and reporting air misses. No doubt my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will be reporting to the House in the near future. That will be the next step.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on low pay? When the Prime Minister visits my constituency tomorrow we hope to draw attention to the growing problem of low pay, particularly in the Health Service, where the disastrous privatisation programme has meant that not even jobcentres will accept advertisements from Mediclean.

Mr. Wakeham: I wish that I could find time for the hon. Lady to have a debate on the subject. We are coming up to the season for an extended debate on the Budget resolutions. Some of the points that the hon. Lady wishes to make could be made in that debate.

Mr. Richard Holt: My right hon. Friend will know that for several weeks I have been pressing for a statement on meningitis. I am grateful to him for the courteous and detailed letter that he sent me following my request last week. This is a matter of national importance, not merely personal importance. I press the Government to make a statement on meningitis because many people who read snippets here and there in the newspapers do not know the full extent and nature of the problem. It is time that the Government cared and made a statement.

Mr. Wakeham: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about the way in which I dealt with the matter last time. I shall refer the issue to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services to establish whether he thinks anything further should be done.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate or a statement on the current dispute at TV-am? Is he aware that for several months


there has been a dispute, with a lockout of members of the Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians, because of the management's attitude? Does he know that, according to recent reports, in contravention of section 20 of the Broadcasting Act 1981, the Saudis now own almost a controlling share in that organisation? Will the right hon. Gentleman have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken)—one of the directors of the company—who has issued a statement calling on Tory MPs to go to TV-am with fellow directors on Wednesday to break through the picket line? When he gets there, I shall be there, along with some of my friends, to ensure that those from other television companies who look to this dispute in the hope of maximising their profits do not turn it into another Wapping.

Mr. Wakeham: When the hon. Gentleman started his question, I was determined not to have another debate. Having listened to him and realised to what extent he has got the wrong end of the stick over most of the issues involved, I was tempted to change my mind. However, I thought better of it; there will be no debate.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a large number of right hon. and hon. Members have signed early-day motion 6?
[That this House deplores the fact that, alone among public service pensioners, those whose service was overseas cannot count pre-appointment war service towards their pensions; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to remedy this injustice to a dwindling group of elderly people whose working lives were spent in adverse conditions while dedicated to the service of British interests overseas.]
It draws the attention of the Government to the anomaly whereby all public service pensioners get war service credit in their pensions unless that service was overseas. Will my right hon. Friend allow us a debate so that what is fast becoming a majority of hon. Members may impress upon the Government the need to do justice to this group of very deserving people?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that this is an important matter, and my hon. Friend has raised it on a number of occasions. However, I cannot promise an early debate and I cannot reasonably add much to what my hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development said earlier in the week.

Mr. Alun Michael: The Leader of the House has had opportunities to explain the reasons for not having a debate on Welsh affairs on St. David's day. He has not yet given us a reason. Will he take this further opportunity to do so? Will he reassure us that it is not simply because of the non-availability of the Secretary of State for Wales, who may prefer creating photo-opportunities in Wales to attending to serious business in this House? Will the arrival of the television cameras in this House attract the Secretary of State to be with us for a debate on St. David's day and will the Leader of the House assure us that next year we can have the debate on St. David's day?

Mr. Wakeham: I cannot at this stage promise the date of the debate in 1989. On this year's debate, if the hon. Gentleman does not know already, he will shortly know

how these matters are arranged. They are arranged through the usual channels for the best convenience of everybody in the House and we did our best to meet all the requirements in this case. It is usually not wise to speculate or make slightly mischievous statements about what one thinks the reasons are, because one is usually wrong.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my right hon. Friend consider having a debate on Scottish affairs only on St. Andrew's day and a debate on English affairs on St. George's day?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend does not say what we should do for the rest of the time. His suggestion is very helpful, but I do not think that I can quite accommodate it.

Mr. Barry Jones: May I again ask the Leader of the House to consider a debate in Government time on the important subject of speech therapy provision in our schools? He will agree with me that many parents are very distressed at the shortage of qualified people to teach and help youngsters suffering speech defects.
Will he also reconsider his disappointing reply on the Welsh day debate and may I remind him that my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Powell) will have no difficulty in looking after his daffodil?

Mr. Wakeham: I felt sure that the hon. Gentleman would have to get in on the act on the question of the Welsh day debate. I cannot be more helpful than I was before.
I imagine that the whole House recognises that the problems of children with speech defects are a serious matter. I should like to provide time for an early debate and I shall look into the matter, but I cannot promise that I shall succeed.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: Will the Leader of the House please bear in mind that when the Criminal Justice Bill returns to the House of Commons there will doubtless be a well-supported clause for the reintroduction of capital punishment? As that is a matter of such public interest and has such public support, and as the state has a duty to protect its citizens, will my right hon. Friend please allow a full day of debate on that important matter?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that my hon. Friend is fast on his feet in such matters, but we should wait until the Bill returns to this House to see what amendments are tabled. We shall then work out how best to deal with them in the customary fashion.

Mr. Greville Janner: May we have a debate on the growing misery of vandalism and theft that afflicts shops, homes, churches and schools, especially in my constituency, and on the Home Secretary's refusal to make available the extra police who are needed on the largest estates? May we ask the Home Secretary for a statement on when he proposes to reply to the request from the chief constable of Leicestershire for 91 additional policemen, which will not be enough to contain the menace that has increased during the past nine years?

Mr. Wakeham: I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I very much hope that in any reply my right hon. Friend may make he will point out to the hon. and learned Gentleman the


additional resources that are now available in the number of police as a result of this Conservative Government's policies in recent years.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: May I reinforce the plea of my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) for a debate on civil aviation because there are not only the matters to which my hon. Friend referred? I ask my right hon. Friend to note other matters, such as airline competition policy, airport capacity and the licensing of certain foreign carriers coming to this country's regional airports, all of which are jostling for attention and would justify a useful debate.

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise the strength of what my hon. Friend says, but I do not think I can add to what I said earlier.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: From the questions asked the Leader of the House will realise the importance attached by Scottish Members to the Scottish Select Committee. What priority does the Leader of the House place on a Committee which is unique by the fact of its non-existence? In saying that a letter will lead to further progress, can he guarantee an announcement some time during the 20th century?

Mr. Wakeham: A Committee that does not exist is not unique. Many Committees that do not exist are unique. I cannot add anything more, but I am working quite hard on this matter, as the hon. Gentleman well knows.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will my right hon. Friend arrange a debate on local government in Derbyshire where, as the latest of its nonsensical ideas, the county council has now issued 100 guidelines, which no doubt took a lot of time, to staff in its schools to say that they should not refer in letters to "he" or "she" when talking about their pupils? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is yet another of the county council's nonsensical ideas, following that of printing on all school notepaper, "Derbyshire supports nuclear-free zones"? A debate would be a useful exercise to expose the abuse of local government that we are currently facing in Derbyshire.

Mr. Wakeham: I have to say to my hon. Friend that in all charity there are not enough hours in the day to expose all the nonsenses of that local authority. However, it seems to me that he might find an opportunity in the not too distant future to table an amendment to the Local Government Finance Bill when it comes back to the Floor of the House.

Mr. Max Madden: Does the Leader of the House remember the Prime Minister reluctantly admitting that about 170,000 pensioners have been robbed of £1 million in compensation as a result of the recent error in the calculation of the retail prices index? Does he also remember that several hon. Members of all parties have raised this matter with him? Can he give us some inkling of the outcome of his meeting with the Prime Minister on this subject? If he is not prepared to reconsider the matter to ensure that the Government meet their moral obligation to pay that money, will he at least ensure that that £1 million is given to pensioner organisations which are campaigning for a substantial increase in pensions and for a better deal for pensioners?

Mr. Wakeham: The hon. Gentleman, who is usually so careful about these things, should re-read the statement

because he clearly did not take it on board. The Government have done something which they were under no legal obligation to do. They believe that they have got it right. On the previous occasion that the matter was raised in the House, one of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends raised the case of an individual pensioner, which I did not believe was a sensible way of proceeding. The Government's statements on these matters have shown that, for all practical purposes, they have dealt with the matter in as fair and reasonable a way as possible.

Sir John Farr: Will there be time for an early debate to consider the terms of early-day motion 652 relating to miscarriages of justice which so far today has the names of 157 right hon. and hon. Members?
[That this House, in view of the widespread disquiet at the recent judgment by the Court of Appeal in the case of the six men convicted of the Birmingham pub bombings, calls upon the Home Secretary to establish an independent review tribunal, along the lines recommended by the Home Affairs Select Committee Report on Miscarriages of Justice, in particular to examine the claim by the honourable Member for Sunderland South that he has traced and interviewed the four men responsible for the bombings and that they are all in Ireland.]
If not, may we have a substantial debate on the Floor of the House at Report stage of the Criminal Justice Bill?

Mr. Wakeham: What is discussed when the Criminal Justice Bill comes back to the House is not a matter for me. I do not see how I can reasonably arrange a debate on this issue at the present time, particularly in view of proceedings which I understand are shortly to take place in the courts.

Mr. Bob Cryer: May we have a statement on the EEC agreement with Turkey on the importing of acrylic yarns, which has a restrictive safeguard clause which, before, it can be operated, involves the sacking of workers and the closure of mills? Is the Leader of the House aware that already that agreement with Turkey through the EEC has led to short-time working in Bradford and a statement is urgently needed to protect jobs? Is it not time that some attention was given to the way in which the Government are continually capitulating to the demands of the Common Market with a consequent adverse effect on jobs in constituencies such as mine?

Mr. Wakeham: I do not accept the substance of the hon. Gentleman's question, but I shall certainly refer the matter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

Mr. Edward Leigh: In response to the question put to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), does my right hon. Friend consider that perhaps we should shortly have a debate on broadcasting so that that hon. Gentleman can explain to his lower-paid constituents, with whose woes he never fails to regale us, how it is that next week he will be appearing on a potentially violent picket line in order to defend the rights of television technicians who earn in excess of £40,000 a year for less than 30 hours a week?

Mr. Wakeham: My hon. Friend puts his point well and I wish that I could arrange such a debate next week, hut I am afraid that I do not see how I can fit it in.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: Is the Leader of the House aware that the non-political organisation, Hospital Alert, has arranged a national lobby of Parliament today and at least 5,000 people will be coming to the Palace of Westminster? Will he give an assurance that can be circulated to people throughout the country who make contact with that organisation that every Member of the House, apart from Ministers and Parliamentary Private Secretaries, are free to sign the early-day motion, which calls for additional resources for the National Health Service? Will he say that there is no need for any hon. Member to excuse his or her failure to sign because it can be amended to secure the necessary objective?
[That this House congratulates the Confederation of Health Service Employees on the publication of its Charter for the National Health Service entitled "2p for Health"; urges that when the Chancellor announces his Budget on 15th March he uses the money put aside for a 2p tax cut for the National Health Service instead; calls on National Health Service staff, those who use its services and those who care about its future to unite in calling for that money, which amounts to £2·5 billion, to be used to fund a way out of the crisis; calls for £2,000 million to go directly into patient services, taking National Health Service funding back to the real level it enjoyed in 1979 and £500 million to be spent immediately, to improve pay and conditions for staff; calls for funding to continue to be through the tax system so that care can be given free at the time of delivery; calls for a rise in health authority funding of at least 2·5 per cent. above the increase in gross domestic product over the next 12 years to bring health spending up to the average for West European countries so as to provide a stable financial framework and enable long-term planning; calls for the urgent talks on how to improve working conditions; calls for full funding for pay awards to relieve the pressure on hard-pressed health authorities in defence of patient services; calls for a guaranteed independent system of pay determination for all health staff; calls for a users' charter of rights setting out a legal right to treatment, calls for a duty on health authorities to look at the quality as well as the cost of services; and calls for the involvement of staff and users in ensuring that standards are met.

Mr. Wakeham: I am sorry to lecture the hon. Gentleman, but the first thing that one has to do before signing an early-day motion is to see whether its terms are reasonable and sensible and I hope that all will recognise that there has been a substantial increase in funding in the NHS under the Government which is likely to continue in future.

Mr. Tony Banks: Did the Leader of the House hear that amazing interview given by the Rev. Pat Robertson, one of the Republican party's presidential candidates, in which he said that he had had a discussion with God who had told him that Europe and the middle east would be destroyed and the world taken over by the evangelists? Does the right hon. Gentleman share my concern that someone like the Rev. Pat Robertson might become President of the United States and, through the nuclear button, have the wherewithal to fulfil that prophecy?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This must bear some relation to our business here.

Mr. Banks: It relates to a request for a debate on broadcasting to enable the House to make its opinions clearly heard. We do not want those television evangelists polluting our airwaves with the disgusting spectacle of people such as Pat Robertson and Jimmy Swaggart pouring out their emotions. They are nothing more than Right-wing conspirators. Can we have a debate?

Mr. Wakeham: I had been wondering whether the hon. Gentleman had been overworking recently. I am bound to say that if he thinks that that is a sensible subject for a debate next week, he should go on holiday for a while.

Mr. Graham Allen: Will the Leader of the House concede that a growing number of hon. Members on both sides of the House, and, indeed, people outside, feel that it is difficult for the Government and the Opposition to conduct their business effectively in the House after 10 pm? That may be even more evident with the televising of Parliament. Since there is no Procedure Committee, will the Leader of the House advise us how best this matter can be brought to the attention of the House for an early decision?

Mr. Wakeham: There is another hon. Member who seems to be falling by the wayside.
For many years the House has tried to conduct as much of its business as it can before 10 pm, but I do not see that, in the foreseeable future, we shall be able to finish our business before 10. I have a feeling that the hon. Gentleman would be the first to complain if some of the subjects that he wanted to debate could not be discussed.

Mr. Graham Riddick: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the fact that members of the National and Local Government Officers Association have until 15 March to cast their vote in the political fund ballot? Is he also aware that NALGO is grossly misrepresenting the Trade Unions Act 1984? Will he arrange a debate so that the House can discuss NALGO's distorted campaign of misinformation in an attempt to mislead its members into voting yes?

Mr. Wakeham: I recognise that this is an important matter. I see the substance in what my hon. Friend says, but I cannot promise him an early debate. I suggest that he puts down a question to the Secretary of State for Employment for answer at Question Time next Tuesday.

Mr. George Foulkes: Does the Leader of the House realise that the Scottish Grand Committee, which does still exist, has not met since daffodils last bloomed in all the lands of the United Kingdom? Has there ever been a time since the Union of Parliaments in 1707 when the Scottish Grand Committee has failed to meet for such a period of time, when the Welsh Grand Committee has met on three occasions since the general election? Is it because the Secretary of State for Scotland is fearful to come before the massed ranks of the Opposition to debate the crisis in the Health Service and in education in Scotland, not to mention the diversion of money from the important bypasses in my constituency to the A74, and many other issues?

Mr. Wakeham: If the hon. Gentleman likes to comfort himself with that view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, whom I heard giving a good account of himself in the House earlier this week, he is welcome to do so. Whether the Scottish Grand


Committee meets in Edinburgh is not entirely a matter for me. Other parts of the House have a view on that. I can only say that I am glad that my ancestry was Welsh rather than Scots, as they seem to be a bit easier to control.

Electricity (Privatisation)

The Secretary of State for Energy (Mr. Cecil Parkinson): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement about the future of the electricity supply industry in England and Wales.
In our manifesto, we promised to bring forward proposals to privatise the industry. Our purpose is to give the customer and the employees a better deal and a direct stake in the industry. I believe that the industry will achieve more if it is moved into the private sector, freed from Government interference, and made accountable to its customers and shareholders, including its employee shareholders.
In framing my proposals, I have adopted six principles. Decisions about the supply of electricity should be driven by the needs of customers. Competition is the best guarantee of the customers' interests. Regulation should be designed to promote competition, oversee prices and protect the customers' interests in areas where natural monopoly will remain. Security and safety of supply must be maintained. Customers should be given new rights, not just safeguards. All who work in the industry should be offered a direct stake in their future, new career opportunities and the freedom to manage their commercial affairs without interference from Government.
There is substantial room for competition in the electricity industry. The distribution and transmission of electricity are largely natural monopolies, in which it would not be economic to duplicate resources, but there is no natural monopoly in electricity generation, which accounts for some three quarters of the costs of electricity. Only if competition is introduced will there be real incentives for generators to build power stations efficiently, to have their stations available and to fuel and run them efficiently.
There are three conditions which must be met if competition in generation is to develop. First, the effective monopoly enjoyed by the Central Electricity Generating Board will have to be ended It will not be sufficient to leave the CEGB in its dominant position and rely on the growth of competition from Scotland, France and private generators. Second, ownership and control of the national grid will have to be transferred to the distribution side of the industry. However well regulated, the CEGB would have little incentive to allow competing generators fair access to a grid that it owned and controlled. Private generating companies would have little incentive to enter the market and compete. Finally, the CEGB's obligation to provide bulk supplies of electricity will have to be ended, as it obliges the CEGB to take all the key decisions on power supply.
I therefore propose to introduce legislation at the earliest opportunity to provide powers to restructure and privatise the industry. Those powers will be used to reorganise the CEGB into three new companies. The first will be a new generating company, owning some 30 per cent. of the CEGB's existing capacity, all of it non-nuclear. The second will comprise the remainder of the CEGB's generating capacity, both fossil-fueled and nuclear. The third will be a national grid company, whose ownership will be transferred to the 12 existing area boards. The area boards will in turn be converted into 12 distribution


companies, preserving their strong regional identity. The Government will consult the industry about the implications of privatisation for the employees and the continuing functions of the Electricity Council, but the council itself will be abolished when the new structure is put in place. When they have been established, the shares in the 12 distribution companies and two generating companies will be sold to the public and employees.
In future, the distribution companies will be able to look to private generators, Scotland, France, the two large generating companies or their own generation to meet demand. The new structure will introduce competition, which will be the best guarantee of the customer's interests, but the legislation will also provide safeguards and new rights. It will create new opportunities for employees.
First, it will establish regulatory arrangements to promote competition, to provide incentives for efficiency and to oversee electricity prices to the consumer.
Secondly, a number of measures will be taken to ensure the security of supply. Because there are not alternatives to electricity in many of its uses, security of supply is of great importance. The legislation will therefore place a clear obligation to supply on the 12 distribution companies, which will ensure that they contract for sufficient capacity, but security of supply is not simply a question of having sufficient capacity. Power has to be transmitted through the national grid and the grid controllers have a central role in planning and directing the use of power stations so as to prevent the failure of the system and to minimise cost. Our proposals will ensure that the national grid company, owned by the distribution companies, retains that central role. The integrity of the grid and the operation of power stations in merit order will be preserved.
The other principal condition for maintaining secure supply is to ensure that electricity is generated from the diversity of fuels. It would be irresponsible to rely on fossil fuels to meet all our electricity generating requirements. The legislation will therefore provide for a clear obligation to be placed on the distribution companies to contract for a specified proportion of non-fossil-fuelled generating capacity.
The legislation will also incorporate an electricity supply code, consolidating and updating the legislation that currently governs the supply of electricity, and dates back to the last century. Above all, we shall maintain present standards of safety throughout the industry.
Finally, the legislation will establish new rights for the consumer. Even after privatisation, the local distribution companies will remain natural monopolies. Although their prices will be regulated, I do not believe that this will be sufficient. The consumer will therefore be given the right to financial compensation, if the distribution companies fail to provide a guaranteed level of service. They will also be required to provide a range of performance indicators of standards of service, which will be published.
Competition and other measures that I have described will benefit the consumer, but the employees will also benefit and that is just as important. The new structure of the industry will provide wider career opportunities for employees and there will be attractive provisions to ensure that they can acquire shares. Existing pension obligations will be safeguarded. The legislation will make no changes to the industry's negotiating and consultation machinery.
Because of the importance of these proposals, I am today publishing them in the form of a White Paper and copies are now available in the Library and in the Vote Office.
The electricity industry has much to be proud of, but I believe that it can achieve more. My proposals will create a modern competitive industry, owned by the public and responsive to the needs of customers and employees.

Mr. John Prescott: I think that the House will at last welcome a statement from the Government on the privatisation of electricity and the publication of the White Paper which we have been calling for. The Secretary of State has presented a highly technical matter to us and we shall need to give proper thought to it. A week on Monday, we shall have the opportunity to debate the issue and to make our points after consideration.
We have heard for a considerable time all the controversy about the Government's proposals. The Secretary of State has confirmed again today that consumers' interests and needs will be guaranteed by competition, but, at the same time, we have heard that he will protect monopolies. It is not a question of private competition; it is a question of monopolies, oligopolies and regulated control and has absolutely nothing to do with competition. Any close reading of the White Paper would certainly show that. If that is contested, the Secretary of State, in both his statement and the White Paper, talks of "natural monopolies". [Interruption.] If Conservative Members do not understand what that means for the exploitation of the consumer, they do not understand the theory of their own competition philosophy.
Does the Secretary of State accept that the White Paper takes the organisation of the electricity supply industry back 50 years? Does he accept that the integration of the system has produced its efficiency and cheaper prices? Does he accept that the dismantling of the electricity supply industry is against the world trend and represents a triumph of ideology over common sense? Why does he dismantle the electricity supply industry that has ensured adequate investment, a reliable, national grid and electricity prices that are presently among the lowest in the world and produced by a public utility?
Has the Secretary of State read the 1981 report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, established by this Government, on the generation of electricity and its 1987 report on bulk transmission of electricity? Is he aware that both reports concluded that, although criticisms could be made, the public utility had not operated against the public interest? That is the judgment of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission which was set up by the Government.
Does the Secretary of State accept the recent Electricity Council report, which shows that, on the latest figures for electricity prices, Britain is the sixth cheapest of the 20 major economies in the world—cheap to the consumer and cheap to industry? [Interruption.] That was produced by the Electricity Council, a fact which may cause some humour on the Government Benches. What guarantee can the Secretary of State give that privatisation will produce cheaper prices than those produced by the public utility?
Does the Secretary of State accept that the electricity price increases due in April have been rejected as unjustified by the CBI, the Electricity Consumers Council


and any other consumer body? Indeed, his own White Paper says nothing about electricity prices. Has he read the independent report by Oxford Economic Research Associates, commissioned by the CBI, which rejects the notion that a 15 per cent. increase over two years is necessary to finance his £40 billion investment programme? Will he accept that the increase amounts to nothing more than a privatisation tax designed to fatten the industry prior to privatisation, and to be paid by the consumer?
What steps will the Secretary of State take to prevent the newly privatised electricity supply industry proposed in the White Paper from colluding on prices and quality of service? Is not the Secretary of State attempting to construct a wholly inappropriate model of competition in an industry where competition has had no place and never had, publicly or privately here or abroad? Does he accept that even in the United States there is not a minuscule of competition? Will we not have a rerun of the British Airways-BCal scenario where in the end the larger company buys out the smaller company? Is it not just monopoly first by collusion and then takeover?
What steps does the Secretary of State intend to take to ensure that British generating capacity is not taken over by foreign owners? Will he consider having a golden share, for whatever that is worth after Britoil, to protect the British capacity to generate electricity? Can he assure us with total confidence that Lord Marshall is wrong to say that the separation of the grid from transmission will risk the security of supply, or will the Secretary of State be known as the first Minister for blackouts?
Will the Secretary of State also ensure that the principle of obligation to supply to which he referred, which is now to be placed on the distribution companies, will guarantee maximum co-operation from private companies in the generation of power under any circumstances, and particularly in emergencies?
In view of the Government's active intention to encourage coal imports in a newly privatised industry, can the Secretary of State tell us what effect that will have on the British industry? Will it not mean an estimated import of 30 million tonnes of coal and add £1 billion to the balance of trade deficit, which already stands at a record level of £14 billion? Will job losses be as high as the 75,000 estimated by the Coalfield Communities Campaign? [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] The Secretary of State took well over 10 minutes to read his statement on the White Paper. I must protest at the barracking of the yobboes on the Government side. I look to you, Mr. Speaker, to give me support.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman wants my support, he shall have it.

Mr. Prescott: If the Secretary of State believes in the power of the market, why does he intend to import nuclear generation into the newly privatised industry? The Secretary of State, who believes in market forces, intends to force private distribution companies to take a share of nuclear energy, yet when it comes to the coal industry he says that market forces will prevail and coal will be bought from the cheapest source of supply. Why is the rule different for nuclear energy when the Government believe so strongly in the market solution? This is intervention by the Government, which is totally inconsistent.
Why is privatisation going ahead when the Secretary of State has singularly failed to present the House with any

evidence to counter the charge that it will lead to higher prices, job losses and poorer service to the consumer? Is this the price to be paid for future tax cuts?
In conclusion—

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Speaker: Order. We have a heavy day in front of us. The hon. Gentleman should now conclude.

Mr. Prescott: Has the Secretary of State read the report of the Gas Consumers Council which shows that, after the privatisation of gas, disconnections last year rose by 35 per cent.? Can he give the House a guarantee that a similar fate will not face consumers in a privatised electricity industry, with consequences for those who may suffer cold-related illnesses, including hypothermia, and who suffer fuel poverty? After all, 30,000 people die each year from cold-related illnesses. When will the Secretary of state produce a long-term energy policy which is capable of meeting the long-term needs of the nation and using the energy resources which are available in a sensible and coherent way?
The Secretary of State, who defends his policy in the name of the consumer, must note that only five paragraphs out of 65 in the White Paper say anything about the consumer. This is not a policy about energy. It is not a policy for the benefit of the consumer or even for the benefit of those employed in the industry. It is solely a policy to maximise the price of selling off Treasury and energy assets to finance tax cuts.

Mr. Parkinson: I am afraid that is not nearly as difficult as the hon. Gentleman would wish it to be. I accept that it is a long White Paper and that the hon. Gentleman has not had it long. When he reads it more carefully, he will find the answers to quite a few of his questions set out in clear detail.
I shall go through some of the points which he raised. He said that I say in the White Paper that distribution is a natural monopoly; that is true. But I also say that nearly 80 per cent. of the costs of electricity arise from generation, and that is not a natural monopoly. The object is to seek to introduce competition into generation and, at the same time, to make sure that the distributors do not abuse their monopoly power, that they are properly regulated and that customers have a choice and also have rights which are enshrined in law.
The hon. Gentleman also said that what is proposed is against the world trend. The plain fact is that there is no world model for electricity supply and generation. The model which we have put before the House, which we believe will work well, is now being widely discussed by far-sighted people in the American supply industry.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the industry will be efficient. We believe that it will be more efficient. We will build on the basis that is there. The main point of the White Paper, which he must recognise, is that at present the industry is totally producer-dominated. Electricity is produced by a single supplier and the customer has no choice but to accept whatever cost that supplier hands over. We are putting the customer in the driving seat. We are tilting the balance of the industry so that it will not in future be producer-dominated but will be dominated by the needs of the consumer. [AN HON. MEMBER: "Will it be cheaper?"] Yes, in due course it will be cheaper because competition will exert downward pressure on costs. It will


not happen overnight. [Interruption.] In that case, we will do even better. All the signs are that competition will produce pressure on costs. At present, 80 per cent. of the costs are pushed over on a cost-plus basis to the customer. That will not be the case in future.
The hon. Gentleman asked about price increases. He quoted the CBI approvingly. I hope he reads that paper carefully. When he has, I cannot imagine that he will find a thing in it with which he will agree. Electricity represents 2 per cent. of industry's costs. For the first time since April 1985, we are proposing an increase of 8 per cent. That means an increase of less than one sixth of 1 per cent. over three-years.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: Not for the big users.

Mr. Parkinson: There are some heavy users, and they are at a disadvantage. However, we have made arrangements to try to help them with their problems. One of the factors that hinder us is that we cannot offer undue preference to any one customer. Under our new structure, heavy users will be able to contract with generators and use the grid as a common carrier, and the problems that the hon. Gentleman and the CBI are moaning about will be dealt with.
The hon. Gentleman talks about collusion. Again, he says that there will be only two generators. There will not. Scotland already has the capacity to support more than 2 GW south of the border, and that capacity could grow. The inter-connector needs strengthening, but effectively we already have three generators. We have the cross-Channel link, and we have two or three private generators feeding into the system. There will be many more in the future. The area boards will have the right to generate, and most are already making plans either to purchase direct or to install capacity of their own.
The hon. Gentleman asked about a golden share. We shall make arrangements to ensure that the industries remain independent. [Interruption.] There are other ways which are very effective, and they will be adopted. [HON. MEMBERS: "Britoil?"] Yes, Britoil has shown that there are weaknesses in that arrangement, but there are other versions that can be put in place just as easily.
The hon. Gentleman talked about the obligation to supply being transferred to the distributors. I do not think that he understands the significance of that. I have already pointed out that at present the industry is completely dominated by the costs of one monopoly supplier, and the distributors have no choice but to accept that cost. In future, they will be able to shop around for capacity and to strike bargains.
The hon. Gentleman talked about coal imports. Coal imports are possible now. They do not take place, because of the long-term agreement between the CEGB and British Coal. If British Coal remains a reliable, competitive supplier, it will continue to supply the industry's substantial needs, but we shall not make it a supplier of obligation. We shall ensure that it remains the supplier of choice, on the basis of its performance. That is why the Government are making available £2 million a day of the taxpayers' money so that Britain has a modern, competitive coal industry.
If the hon. Gentleman really cares about the future of coal, I advise him to talk to the unions in the industry and

explain to them the need for flexible, modern working to go with the flexible, modern investment. [Interruption.] I am just about to explain.
The hon. Gentleman asked about nuclear power. We believe that diversity of supply is essential for security of supply.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Why cannot the same apply to coal?

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman asks why we cannot have coal use to produce electricity. But we shall: coal will remain a substantial supplier to the industry. It will still be overwhelmingly the biggest single source of power. That will be built into the system. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is no point in the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) asking questions from a sedentary position. If he is patient, he may have a chance to ask them on his feet.

Mr. Parkinson: We believe that it is in the national interest to have diversity, and nuclear power is part of that diversity. That was part of our election manifesto. It has been a declared policy of the Government, and remains so. One of the reasons for which we need diversity of supply is the abuse of monopoly power that certain elements of the coal industry have demonstrated that they enjoy using.
I was asked about disconnections. There is no reason why disconnections should increase under a privatised industry, and we shall make arrangements to ensure that the code of conduct remains in place and is observed.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am bound to have regard to the subsequent business for today, which is an important debate on Northern Ireland. I shall allow questions on the statement until 5.15 pm, and then we really must move on. I shall bear in mind that the hon. Members whom I call today will not stand quite such a good chance in the debate on Monday.

Mr. David Howell: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the additional competition that he proposes, and the creation of numerous new sources of electricity supply, is very welcome and will greatly assist the consumer — a point that the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) seemed to ignore completely in his interminable harangue?
As the Government propose that the entire nuclear programme should now go into the private sector, and as the nuclear costs will be protected by the requirement of the distribution company to buy nuclear, and that will therefore be passed on to the consumer, will my right hon. Friend reassure us that the nuclear building programme will be rigorously overhauled, tightly controlled and made suitable for the needs of the 1990s—and, in particular, suitable for a world in which oil and coal prices will remain very low?

Mr. Parkinson: I know my right hon. Friend's views about nuclear generation. We believe that a generation of pressurised water reactors—the same technology, with a repeat build, six being built one after the other—will offer a sensible, secure way of meeting the nuclear obligation.
Of course, as a result of the customer's obligation to buy electricity from nuclear generation, the nuclear industry will be in a privileged position, and that aspect will have to be regulated very carefully.

Mr. Stanley Orme: Why is the Secretary of State treating the nuclear industry differently from the coal industry? Why has he given a guarantee for nuclear power and British generation, but gives no guarantee that the British coal industry will be protected?
We see what is happening in Scotland. This could sound the death knell for the British coal industry unless there is a guarantee in the White Paper and in Government policy.

Mr. Parkinson: The right hon. Gentleman is being extremely defeatist. Since 1979, the Government have made an investment of nearly £6 billion in the coal industry: £2 million a day is being invested. The industry is responding. It is becoming more competitive. I believe that it is capable of facing up to the competition, and that it does not need the protection that the right hon. Gentleman demands.
It is a very negative approach to the industry to say that it has no future unless it is entirely protected. It must make good use of the investment. It must have modern working practices to go with the modern machinery, and its future will then be secure. That is in the hands of those who work in the industry.

Sir Ian Lloyd: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Select Committee on Energy has begun a major and comprehensive inquiry — belatedly, through no fault of its own. He will also be aware that the inquiry has already disclosed not only that this is a matter of immense complexity, but that there are profound disagreements on the structure, consequences and objectives of privatisation.
As the inquiry is unlikely to be completed until June, may I ask my right hon. Friend for an assurance that the proposals will not be regarded as having been set in concrete, but that the evidence and conclusions that the Select Committee may reach will be taken into careful consideration?

Mr. Parkinson: Of course we shall take the Select Committee's conclusions into consideration. However, these are Government proposals enshrined in a White Paper, and I have made it clear that we intend to bring forward legislation as soon as possible. Between now and the introduction of the Bill, an immense amount of detailed decision-making must be done. We believe that the Select Committee can make a real contribution to that decision-making, but the central structure is that which the Government have proposed to the House, and on which they intend to legislate.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Would the Secretary of State be entirely happy if his assessments of energy prices as a result of the impending increase were subject to the scathing and searching criticism that they seem to deserve? Does he accept that his statement seemed to contain a recognition of the impressive achievement of the publicly owned electricity supply industry throughout the post-war period, meeting national needs and growing demand? Does not his suggestion that there should be an element of compensation for failure to supply seem to illustrate that, despite the ebullience of the White Paper, the Government are now beginning to have some doubts and some feeling that caution is necessary?

Mr. Parkinson: No, Sir — quite the reverse. The proposals which we are making and which will be

enshrined in the legislation have been developed in part by the East Midlands electricity board and are being tried in the area already. We think that the idea is a good one, should be enshrined in legislation and should be made available to all customers of the electricity supply industry, and that is what we are doing. So it is not any sign of lack of confidence; it is adopting a practical experience which the industry has just gone through.

Dr. Michael Clark: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. Is he aware that it will be welcomed by Government Members, the vast majority of people in the electricity supply industry and, of course, consumers of electricity? Will he assure the House that the nuclear generation of electricity will continue to flourish, and that it will not be cosseted or allowed to benefit from cross-subsidisation, but rather will be exposed to the full rigours of competition, which will be to its long-term advantage?

Mr. Parkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. It is a fact that the structure which I have proposed today is supported by all the area boards and by the Electricity Council. We have yet to hear the reaction of the CEGB. [Interruption.] Just in case the hon. Gentleman sneers, two thirds of the people in the industry work in the area boards.
The Government have committed themselves to a nuclear programme because they believe, as I said earlier, that nuclear power provides an essential component of the diversity of supply that is the basis of our security. I believe that it is possible and will be possible for it to be provided on an economic basis.
It is an extremely complex subject, because we are talking about the costs of power stations which will be built within the next 10 years and will still be operating 40 years from now. Nuclear power offers a certainty about cost and a certainty about supply, so it is very hard to have a debate based purely on the economics.

Dr. David Owen: Since this is the first privatisation of a public monopoly that really does improve competition and provide customer choice and some sensible consumer rights, would it not be more logical for the Government not to impose any further electricity price rises but to wait until market forces operate on the industry? Similarly, would it not be more logical for the Government not to commission any further nuclear plants until the nuclear generating industry is subjected to objective through-costing under the same market principles?

Mr. Parkinson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his recognition that we are creating a structure which will offer the prospects of competition and a better deal for the customer. He asked about prices. The level of return achieved by the industry at present is too low. It is about 2·45 per cent., which is less than one half of the rate of return that the Labour Government of which he was a member decided was necessary. We are proposing, over two years and after a period of no increases at all, to move the rate of return nearer to the rate of return that is acceptable. We need to do that to create an income base which will support the borrowing and the funding of the huge programme on which we are about to embark; £45 billion will need to be invested between now and the year 2000 either by private generators or by the successor


companies to the CEGB if this country is to have a secure electricity supply. These price increases are necessary to build up an income base that will fund that investment.

Mr. Norman Tebbit: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his statement is very welcome? Perhaps no part of it is more welcome than his announcement that in effect the old principle of no undue preference in supply will disappear—

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Gissa job.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Tebbit. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman has as much right as anybody else.

Mr. Tebbit: —in order that proper bargaining can take place between major users and suppliers? Is he also aware that perhaps the most encouraging feature of the discussion following his statement today is the announce-ment from the Opposition Front Bench that the Labour party is now committed to consumerism and competition in the energy industry? Has my right hon. Friend heard whether that is going to apply to Labour policy on coal?

Mr. Parkinson: What we have heard from the Labour party today is a reaffirmation of its members' belief in competition and the customer and the demand that he should not be allowed to have any choice at all, which is typical of the Socialists that they are. I agree with my right hon. Friend that major users need access to power at competitive prices and that the present legislative structure makes that very difficult. In future, major users will have the right to enter into contracts, to use the grid as a common carrier and to make arrangements to meet their own special needs.

Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse: Is the Secretary of State aware that his announcement this afternoon is the death knell of the mining industry? It is fairly obvious that he has no intention of making any alternative arrangements regarding the understanding between British Coal and the CEGB and that, at present low world prices, British Coal will not be able to compete. That being the case, British Coal and many thousands more miners' jobs will go to the wall. This could well be deliberate Government policy.

Mr. Parkinson: It is not Government policy. Government policy is to make investments in the industry which will ensure that it is modern and competitive, and to encourage those who run it to adapt their working methods to match the modern machinery. There is no question of the CEGB being able to buy 70 million tonnes of coal at the marginal world price of coal, because the world market in coal is too small. So the hon. Gentleman is inventing a frightening spectre, which is unnecessary. If the miners in his constituency work hard with the modern machinery and use it well, they will be able to compete and they will have the opportunity to supply. There is no reason why a privatised industry should turn its back on a supplier on its doorstep that offers reliable supplies at competitive prices, but that means an end to strikes, working to rule, total waste of time and industrial conflict. Those are the things that are really posing a threat to the future of the coal industry.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the broad thrust of his statement

today will be greatly welcomed? But there is one area of considerable concern that reflects on heavy users of electricity. It is not adequate for my right hon. Friend to use phrases such as "try to help" or "leave it to local negotiation". The core of British industry, the heavy users, need special help and special deals. Will he ensure that, now that we have the opportunity of new legislation, they will be protected?

Mr. Parkinson: That is precisely the point that I was making. Because of our rules about undue preference, although we do make arrangements that help the heavy users, there is a limit to what can be done. In future, heavy users will have the opportunity to contract direct with suppliers and to use the grid as a common carrier. I believe that our proposals offer a real opportunity of dealing with that very difficult problem.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Why, before making his statement today, did the Secretary of State so studiedly refuse to offer any kind of meaningful consultation to the industry's management, the trade unions and the consumer councils on what he is proposing? Will it not look like rank hypocrisy to talk of his concern for the consumer when he refused even to consult the consumer councils?

Mr. Parkinson: Since last June, I have consulted extremely widely with all sides of the industry and have had discussions with academics, economists, unions, management and consumers—with all people who have an opinion about the structure of the industry. It is simply not true that there has been no consultation. However, I have not been able to accept the views of some of the people whom I have consulted. Their definition of consultation is that I should change all my opinions and accept theirs. There have been many discussions, but I cannot accommodate everyone. Some of those who have not been accommodated are now saying that they have not been consulted. That simply is not true.

Sir David Price: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his decision to retain the integrity of the national grid as a common carrier is welcome and realistic, as all our major power stations have been located on the basis of environmental and supply considerations, and not on the basis of where the greatest demand has been?

Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend is right in saying that the integrity and the operation of the grid are vital parts of our system. Our proposals make arrangements to maintain all the benefits of that. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for pointing out to the House the importance of the grid.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: How will the price of nuclear-generated electricity be fixed? Can I have an assurance that it will not necessarily follow the price of coal, because of the long-term implications of investment in nuclear plant? Secondly, can I have an assurance that today's announcement will not in any way influence the future of British Nuclear Fuels plc as a publicly owned company?

Mr. Parkinson: I am sorry, but I did not hear the second half of the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It was a request for an assurance on the future of British Nuclear Fuels plc as a publicly owned company.

Mr. Parkinson: My statement today contained a very strong reaffirmation of the Government's commitment to the nuclear supply industry. That must be the best possible news for BNFL. BNFL has made tremendous strides in recent years. I believe that its future is more secure as a result of today's announcement.
At present, we buy our electricity from the nuclear power stations on a cost-plus basis. It is simply fed through in the bulk supply tariff to the customers. In future, the costs will have to he regulated because, for diversity reasons, we are guaranteeing a market for the electricity. Therefore, that particular source of supply will need to be quite carefully regulated.

Mr. Alastair Goodlad: Does my right hon. Friend accept that the imaginative and sensible proposals that he has announced, which combine the introduction of competition with the preservation of the merit order and the integrity and excellence of the nuclear industry, will be widely welcomed throughout the electricity supply industry, which will make the future arrangements work with the dedication and determination that it has shown in the past?

Mr. Parkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for the compliment that he pays to the people who work in the industry. We want to build on their achievements in future. I believe that the prospects for everyone working in the industry will be improved by my announcement today and not threatened in any way. I am sure that the people who work in the industry will work hard to implement the proposals and produce a modern, competitive electricity supply industry.

Mr. Allan Rogers: Does the Secretary of State accept that the proposals will mean more regulation and direction in the industry? The way in which the Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) spoke about consumerism really is claptrap. The consumers will have only one electricity line to their homes, supplied by only one electricity board. They will have no real choice except that of the primary fuel.
The Secretary of State enunciated six principles on which he was drawing up proposals. No. 5 was that customers should be given new rights. What does he mean by new rights for customers? Will they have special rights if they are old-age pensioners or if they cannot pay their bills, or will it be the same as with British Gas, with an ever-increasing number of disconnections since privatisation?
Lastly, will the Secretary of State tell the House how research and development into potential new sources of energy is to be funded? Who will be responsible for developing such schemes as the fast breeder reactor or the Severn barrage schemes?

Mr. Parkinson: I made it clear in my statement that the distribution companies are regional monopolies and therefore will be subject to regulation in the private sector. That is necessary, and I believe that it will be acceptable to the House.
As for customer rights, I explained to the House—perhaps the hon. Gentleman was not here — that performance standards will be set. If those standards are not met, the customer will have the right to a rebate for any failure by the industry to perform. [Interruption.] I

notice that one or two Opposition Members are smiling, but the system is working extremely well in the east midlands. It is a very useful management tool as it shows which areas are operating inefficiently and enables management to take action to improve performance.
Most renewable research at present is funded by my Department, and 30 per cent. of the costs of the fast reactors are being met by the CEGB. Obviously, that will have to be a matter for negotiation, but most of the research into renewables is funded by the taxpayer through the Department of Energy.

Mr. Tony Favell: The proposals are undoubtedly in the long-term interest of the employees of the CEGB and other new companies. In the short term, there will be confusion for many as to who is to be their future employer, including the 600 or 700 employees at Europa house in Stockport. How will these problems be resolved? Will my right hon. Friend put their fears at rest?

Mr. Parkinson: I know of my hon. Friend's interest in the subject. On numerous occasions he has told me about the problems and interests of his constituents. One of the reasons why we made the statement to the House and produced the White Paper was to reassure people in the industry and to end speculation about the future structure of the industry. We have made arrangements for every employee of the electricity supply industry—all 137,000 of them—to receive tomorrow copies of the statement and of the White Paper, which has been written specifically with the interests of the employees, among others, in mind.

Mr. Jack Thompson: It seems from the Secretary of State's statement that there will be many technical arguments about the development of the White Paper in future debates on this issue. There is some suspicion about the technical advice that the Secretary of State has received. Who advised him about removing the control of the grid from the generating side of the industry? The logic of that is impossible to understand.
The Secretary of State did not mention safety in the industry. There is a very high standard of safety in the industry, although the nuclear side is suspect. There is a lack of public confidence in the nuclear side of the industry, but in general it has a good safety record. Obviously, when the industry is privatised there will be less enthusiasm to invest in its safety aspects.
The other area—

Hon. Members: Speech.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman put his question succinctly?

Mr. Thompson: May I ask the Secretary of State to comment on the effects on the environment when the industry is privatised?

Mr. Parkinson: On the first question, about the technical aspect, we have had the benefit of advice from outstanding consultants, but we have also consulted.widely. It is now a matter of agreement between the CEGB and ourselves that there is no technical difficulty about the removal of the grid. It would argue that there are costs involved and we would argue that savings would flow from the increased competition that would result from the transfer of the grid.
The hon. Gentleman raised a favourite subject of Opposition Members: the suggestion that somehow or other the private sector is less interested in safety than the


public sector. There is no evidence of any kind for that assertion; it is just a myth that Opposition Members persist in trying to push. There will be no change in the safety regulations, except that the regulations, which are enshrined in 24 statutes going back to the 1880s, will be put into a modern form. The standards will not be lowered; if anything, they will be improved.

Mr. Andy Stewart: In view of my right hon. Friend's statement, and the transformation of British Coal's performance in the past three years—production is up by 60 per cent. and coal prices at the power stations are down by 22 per cent. — can he advise my constituents what they should do to secure the future?

Hon. Members: Vote Labour.

Mr. Parkinson: There is no reason to believe that voting Labour would do anything but put a great blight on their prospects, because the prospects for the coal industry depend upon the economy. The hallmark of Labour Governments is economic chaos and crisis. We will continue to promote a sound economy that grows, and that is good news for the miners. Secondly, as my hon. Friend pointed out, if productivity continues to improve, new machinery is well used and new investments are properly exploited, there is no reason at all why the British coal industry should not have a very good future.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: Will the Secretary of State guarantee that ministerial responsibility for all aspects of nuclear safety, and so public accountability, will be maintained? Will he say that there will be no minimum nuclear element, as opposed to non-fossil-fuel element, in the requirement for generating capacity and no extra cost put on the taxpayers by the proposals? When will the Minister state that consumers will benefit from this, as the only thing that has happened so far is that prices have increased, affecting the poor and the powerless?

Mr. Parkinson: The change in prices would have occurred whether or not the industry was privatised. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to accept that fact. It spoils most of his statements, but it happens to be true. Secondly, as for Ministers being responsible for nuclear safety, the nuclear installations inspectorate is responsible for nuclear safety. It is licensed as a wholly independent body and it is being strengthened. There is no question that its responsibilities will be changed in any way.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Is not the truth of the matter that the statement is the next step in privatisation, after the fattening-up process of increasing prices in the electricity industry, which means that poor pensioners will have to pay the bill for the privatisation which will follow in order to line the pockets of Back-Bench Tory Members, many of whom will be anxious for directorships arising out of the legislation, including the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit)? [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Time is getting on.

Mr. Skinner: Why should the nuclear industry be feather-bedded in the White Paper, while the coal industry is expected to compete with the slave labour conditions of the South African market and the nine-year-olds mining coal in Colombia? Is he aware that the proposals will provide the Left wing with the means to take us back into public ownership?

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Gentleman had better have a word with his Front Bench. They are trying desperately to run away from the notion of renationalisation.

Mr. Skinner: I am not worried about that.

Mr. Parkinson: He is not worried about it, but they are worried by him. Perhaps he could have a word with his hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East, because he has moved his position recently. He used to make those rather inane remarks about lining the pockets of the City. He now realises that, if a higher price is obtained for the industry, it will come to the Treasury and the taxpayers, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend could have a word and try to understand the problems.

Sir Trevor Skeet: If it is possible for a competent person to build a nuclear power station, under the plan who will undertake the necessary research for nuclear safety and pay compensation in the event of a nuclear accident? As my hon. Friend is conceding to the distribution companies the right to produce electricity, is he prepared to concede to the CEGB full marketing rights and the later opportunity, if need be, to take over some of the distribution enterprises?

Mr. Parkinson: We should like to see the distribution companies remain as independent bodies. One of the strengths of those companies is that their head offices are based in the regions they serve. As a result of the proposals, 12 very substantial regionally based companies will be created in which the workers and people of those regions will have shares and can take a stake. The local identity of the boards is a very important factor which we wish to preserve in the course of the privatisation of the industry.

Mr. Peter Rost: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that many area boards are convinced that they can contract to the private sector for power, or generate their own power, more cheaply than they can buy it from the CEGB? Will he accept that, in the interim before privatisation, it is very important that the private sector should have the opportunity to compete fairly on tariffs and the construction of power stations?

Mr. Parkinson: My hon. Friend is right. One of the reasons why the legislation is necessary is that the Energy Act 1983 simply has not worked, because the monopoly generator has control of the grid. What I have announced today will mean that the private generators can look forward to having access to the grid, using it as a common carrier and striking contracts with people who wish to buy their electricity. The area boards welcome the opportunity finally to have some choice about the generator from which they buy their electricity.

Mr. Frank Cook: The Secretary of State will already know that the actuarial risk of any accident in a nuclear power station and the consequential costs must be underwritten by the taxpayers through the House. What provision does the Secretary of State intend to make for the burden of such a liability in the 70 per cent. that he intends to launch on the market? What provision does he intend to make in legislation for the cost incurred in decommissioning the Magnox stations that are already coming to the end of their lives? Who will bear that cost —the British taxpayer again?

Mr. Parkinson: Provisions have already been made and are being made continuously in the accounts of the CEGB for the cost of the decommissioning. At the moment, the provision stands at just under £470 million. That provision is being built up as the stations are being operated. Details of the kind the hon. Gentleman talks about will have to be settled in negotiations between the industry and ourselves. Until the structure was settled, many of the detailed arrangements simply could not be negotiated, but they will be and the full details will be presented in the legislation brought to the House at the beginning of the next Session.

Mr. Phillip Oppenheim: Will my right hon. Friend accept that his attempts to reconcile the needs of competition with guaranteed supply and having strategic non-fossil-fuel capacity have been highly successful? Does he agree that it is ironic that the great monopolists in the Opposition should accuse him of all people of not introducing enough competition in the White Paper? Does he accept that the White Paper will be warmly welcomed by Conservative Members?

Mr. Parkinson: I thank my hon. Friend for those remarks. I listened with amazement to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) criticising me for not introducing enough competition, when his proposal is to maintain a huge monopoly supplier.

Mr. Martin Redmond: Is the Secretary of State aware that future generations will condemn him for the long-term damage he will do to the national interest? I listened intently to his speech and I did not hear of any provisions that would satisfy the nuclear nuts, except in their own nuclear waste. I listened to what he said about dumping; he does not have a clue about it. I suggest that when he switches on his electric lights, powered with coal from Colombia that has been brought to the surface by the blood of children, he should learn what dumping is about and the long-term damage it will do to the country.

Mr. Parkinson: The hon. Member for Don Valley (Mr. Redmond) and other hon. Gentlemen refer to Colombia. We consume about 100 million tonnes of coal in this country. The latest estimate is that approximately 200,000 tonnes of it comes from Colombia. May I break some news to the hon. Gentleman, which he would regard as good news, although some of my right hon. and hon. Friends might not? There are not the handling facilities to bring in more than about 15 million tonnes of coal, should that be desired, nor can facilities be developed. That is part of the price we paid for reassuring the miners that we wanted to sustain their monopoly. We now realise that that was a big mistake. The monopoly supply position of the British coal industry has been abused, and used as an economic and political weapon. The miners, by their activities, made the people suspicious of being over-dependent on coal.

Mr. Tony Speller: May I assure my right hon. Friend of the great support he will have from all the alternative electricity generating industries, which will have at long last a chance to sell their wave, wind and solar energy or any other form of alternative power. We all welcome the White Paper from the viewpoints of the environment, choice and the consumer.

Mr. Parkinson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He has highlighted an important fact—that the commitment to non-fossil fuels includes renewable fuels. In certain areas

of the world, such as California, there are substantial renewables generating power plants. If any of the alternative sources of energy prove to be economic, those will become part of the proportion of non-fossil-fuel-produced electricity available for purchase.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will preserve the list of those hon. Members who have not yet been called, and shall ensure that they will have some priority if they wish to speak in the subsequent debate.

Mr. Bob Cryer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that the Secretary of State said at the conclusion of his statement that the White Paper was available now in the Vote Office. It is a convention that a White Paper should be published here and that the Secretary of State should make a statement to the House first of all. Yet again, Mr. Speaker, the television news coverage at 1 pm today carried full details, as did today's early morning newspapers. Quite clearly, the Secretary of State has ignored his primary obligation to the House, which I believe that hon. Members wish to sustain, as well as you yourself, Mr. Speaker. We can have resort only to you to defend the rights of the House against an elective dictatorship that is intent on ignoring the rights of the House and their obligations to come here first. If it was otherwise, the first information about the project would have been given to the House rather than to television and the newspapers.

Mr. Parkinson: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I join the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer), for once, in deploring this leak of the White Paper and of the details. We had nothing at all to gain from it and we sought very hard indeed to make sure that the House was the first body to hear of our decisions.
The decision was finally taken in the Cabinet this morning and was announced to the House as soon as possible after that.

Mr. Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have been listening to the Secretary of State's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) who deplored information being leaked prior to the Secretary of State's announcement to the House. Will the Secretary of State pursue an inquiry to find out the source of that leak, as I did not hear him mention that course? I should like to know, Mr. Speaker, whether the Secretary of State intends to hold an inquiry.

Mr. Martin Flannery: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can we be assured that an inquiry will take place? If we do not have an inquiry into such a leak, that means in effect that we condone it by doing nothing, and further leaks will occur.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is worth recalling that the Secretary of State probably admitted that it is not usual for Secretaries of State to say that there had not been a leak, and that the matter had gone to the Cabinet for consideration this morning, so that he could not understand how the information had got out. But he never said that what did get out was wrong. Apparently, the information was correctly reported in some newspapers this morning and on the television news, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) said. The Secretary of State says now that he has no knowledge of how it happened


and that it was not caused by him, and there must be a prima facie case for an inquiry. The Secretary of State ought to have the guts to get up and tell us now.

Mr. Cryer: He is just shrugging his shoulders.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not a matter for me whether there should be an inquiry. I repeat what I have so frequently said— that the House should always be the first to be told. I have heard what the Secretary of State says about this matter. I hope that the press will keep the embargoes placed against these statements.

Questions to Ministers

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I genuinely mean no criticism of you, but on the Order Paper today there were 47 questions to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland of which 24 were from Labour Back Benchers. You will note that in the course of Question Time, which lasted three quarters of an hour, you were able to call only two Labour Back Benchers.
I do not complain about that, and I appreciate that you are circumscribed, Sir, to some extent by the fact that you feel obliged to call Members from constituencies in Northern Ireland, as well as Conservative Members and other Opposition Members. In so far as Northern Ireland's affairs are of great interest to members of the Labour party, may I ask that Opposition Back Benchers are given more time during Question Time to raise these important matters, as otherwise the debates in Question Time will be completely distorted and, without the contributions of my right hon. and hon. Friends from the Front Bench, unreasonable and unfair?

Mr. Martin Redmond: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask hon. Members to allow me to deal with one question at a time. I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) says. I hope that I deal fairly with all sides of the House, and if I have not done so, I shall review the position, as I do every day. However, whenever Front Bench Members rise, as the hon. Gentleman knows, that tends to reduce Opposition Back Benchers' opportunities.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the five motions relating to statutory instruments.
Ordered.
That the draft Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 (Schedule 3 Amendment) Order 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Social Security (Contributions, Re-rating) Order 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Social Security (Treasury Supplement to and Allocation of Contributions) (Re-rating) Order 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.
That the draft Public Lending Right (Increase of Limit) Order 1988 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Wakeham.]

Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions)

Mr. Speaker: We now come to the debate on Northern Ireland.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you inform us about the incoming debate? I understand that at 7 o'clock, opposed private Members' business is coming before the House. What time will be given to this very important debate on Northern Ireland?

Mr. Speaker: I can tell the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that this debate will be interrupted at 7 o'clock for opposed private business, and if it has not concluded at that time it may continue after 10 pm until 11.30 pm.

The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom King): I beg to move,
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts 1978 and 1987 (Continuance) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 16 February, be approved.
The continuance order is the first to be made under the new 1987 Act. Previously, the House was asked to approve the orders every six months, and this is the first time that it comes forward for annual renewal. The advantage of this longer period is that it is possible to review developments rather more carefully in the period between renewal debates. It has provided for the first time for Lord Colville to report to the House on the operation of the Act, as I asked him to do.
I propose to discuss briefly the background to the Act, to describe the changes made to the emergency provisions under the 1987 Act, and something of their progress. I will deal with Lord Colville's comments in his first report and say a little about the wider issues and the present scene in Northern Ireland.
I am conscious that there are a number of hon. Members who wish to speak and I will try to condense my remarks to the essential areas of concern that I believe are proper to enable me to present the order to the House. I hope that that will not be thought a discourtesy.
The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1978 provides the security forces in Northern Ireland with extra powers to deal with the special problems of terrorism in Northern Ireland. They include powers to stop and question, arrest, enter, search and seize. It also provides powers to proscribe organisations and creates offences concerning the collection of information that might be useful to terrorists, training people in the manufacture or use of firearms or explosives for improper purposes and displaying public support for proscribed organisations. All of the provisions relating to those powers will lapse on 21 March unless continued in force by this order.
The 1978 Act also provides the legal authority for the operation of the so-called "Diplock courts" by which serious terrorist offences are tried by a single judge sitting without a jury. The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987 incorporated into the emergency provisions certain recommendations of Sir George Baker. They included the provision that all emergency arrest powers now require "reasonable grounds for suspicion" and that searches of dwellings and searches of persons other than in a public place also require "reasonable grounds for suspicion" and that the maximum period for

which the RUC can hold a suspected terrorist, on its own authority, is now 48 hours instead of 72 hours. The onus in bail applications in scheduled cases is now on the prosecution rather than the defence. Other recommendations were that the statutory guidance on the admissibility on confession evidence in scheduled cases should be rephrased to reflect the court's view that admissions obtained by the use or threat of violence should not be admissible, and that concerning the judge's discretion to exclude any admission in the interests of justice or out of fairness to the accused. Both Acts will lapse in 1992 and if similar provisions continue to be necessary they will have to be re-enacted by means of a Bill.
The Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987 also introduced a statutory right for persons arrested under section 12 of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 1974 to have someone notified of their arrest and whereabouts and to have access to legal advice. Section 12 is the main arrest power used in connection with terrorism in Northern Ireland. The Act also gave the authority to impose statutory time limits on pre-trial stages of proceedings and introduced a statutory scheme for regulating security guard companies in Northern Ireland.
The 1987 Act was a major piece of legislation. Its purpose was, of course, further to refine the emergency powers and to try to improve, yet again, on that delicate balance between protecting the rights of individuals caught up in such situations and avoiding handicapping the security forces' fight against terrorism.
This is the first opportunity to review the progress of the 1987 Act and its new powers. One of those powers is for regulating security guard companies. It is now an offence to provide such security services without a certificate from my Department. If it is believed that proscribed organisations are likely to benefit from such security services a company is unable to receive a certificate. Such regulating is part of our continued campaign to tackle the problems of paramilitary racketeering as a means of fund-raising — vital to the continuance of terrorism—arid which we intend to do everything we can to choke off.
It is interesting to note that in the first period of operation of the certification scheme a number of security guard operations have already chosen not to apply for certificates. Therefore, I believe that there is some evidence to suggest that that scheme is starting to have some effect.
I asked Lord Colville to report on the working of the Acts and this is the first year in which he has submitted his report. I thank Lord Colville for his careful and diligent study when carrying out that review. I believe that his report has been of benefit to hon. Members when considering the progress that has been made.
The first requirement that I made of Lord Colville was that he should consider and advise whether any temporary provisions might lapse and to report on the way in which the Acts have been applied. It is interesting to note Lord Colville's first and main conclusion:
the overwhelming view is an insistence on, or acceptance of, the emergency powers remaining in force.
The Government agreed with his conclusion and that is why we are here today. We regret the need for the emergency powers, but faced with the current situation in Northern Ireland we believe that they are essential. Lord Colville also said:


I gained the impression that the Act is being used with due reflection, moderation and commonsense; that refinements of earlier activities have reduced the reaction, at least, to what are seen as oppressive powers; and that the courts are strict in their interpretation of police and military activities both in criminal and civil suits.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Is it not the case that, somewhere, Lord Colville referred to the use of tape recordings in the interrogation of suspected persons? Should not a code of practice embrace the use of tape recordings in such matters?

Mr. King: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I am aware that Lord Colville made no reference to that matter in his report on the Emergency Provisions Acts, but I am advised that it is mentioned in his report on the Prevention of Terrorism Act. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his efficient prompting. There was no mention of that matter in connection with the order that we are discussing.
An important commendation from Lord Colville is that "the Northern Ireland courts are astute to interpret the Emergency Provisions Acts most strictly in favour of the liberty of the subject."
Lord Colville has made a number of recommendations. He asked for clearer statistics relating to the breakdown between offences certified out and we are considering whether something can be done about that. Anyone who studies the Colville report will note that a significant number of offences were certified out in the various years. Lord Colville asked whether we might change from the procedure of certifying out to certifying in. On balance, Lord Colville came down against that change. The House will be aware of the reasons he gave and we believe that that judgment was right.
Lord Colville suggested removing robbery and aggravated burglary from the scheduled list. We certainly want to see as many jury trials as we can and we shall consider those proposals.
Under the 1987 Act I have powers—I have not used those powers yet and we are observing the scheme that is currently operating in England and Wales—regarding the introduction of time limits. The House will see that, in the annex to Lord Colville's report, he notes the considerable improvement in the waiting time before trial. We certainly hope that that reduction is improved.
Lord Colville also referred to the need for the early introduction of a code of practice relating to the emergency powers. He asked whether that code would cover the section 12 arrest powers and I confirm that that is so.
Those are the main considerations to which I would wish to draw attention. If hon. Members wish to raise other matters my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office will seek to address them.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: What has happened to the Home Office inquiry that was set up a year and a half ago into kidnap insurance? That relates to one part of the Act. What has been resolved? Is the work still going on?

Mr. King: I shall have to take notice of that point. If we have the information, my right hon. Friend will try to respond to it.
The purpose of the order is to enable the powers that I have described to remain in force for a further 12 months.

I have described the detailed outline of the 1978 Act and the 1987 Act, and Lord Colville's comments on them. Now I want to discuss the background against which this debate takes place.
The tragic outrage last night in the centre of Belfast is the latest confirmation, if any were needed, of the difficult and different problems that we face in Northern Ireland. The levels of violence in 1987 may have been below the worst levels of the 1970s, but there was a most unwelcome increase in violence, at least to the levels of the early 1980s. Last year there were 93 deaths in the Province and there have been 10 already this year. Amongst those were 11 members of the Army and the UDR, 16 members of the RUC and the RUC reserve, a large number of civilians, including Lord Justice Gibson and his wife, and 11 bystanders at the Remembrance Day parade at Enniskillen. I remember also the eight terrorists killed at Loughall, the four terrorists blown up by their own bombs and the seven members who were killed in the INLA feud. I mention them all because many of them were young men, and, whatever our attitude to their motivations, they were all people who lost their lives in the sadness and futility and pointlessness of the terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland, which achieves nothing.
No one in the House takes pleasure in any deaths, but that is the tragic record of the past year. All that the terrorist campaign produces is sorrow, grief, unemployment, the obstruction of normal life and extra problems for the community. Sometimes people ascribe blame for the road blocks, vehicle check-points and watchtowers, but, as I said at Question Time, those things are there because of the IRA and the other terrorist organisations that have introduced this obscene problem to Northern Ireland. The community must use every means at its disposal to protect itself against this evil violence.
The threat that we now face is maintained and, sadly, enhanced by the outside intervention of substantial arms resources on a scale hitherto unparalleled in the terrorist campaign in Northern Ireland. I refer to the involvement of the Libyan supplies. That intervention poses a dangerous and difficult problem and brings into even sharper focus the outstanding courage and dedication of everyone in the security forces. This is a dangerous time and everyone in Northern Ireland knows that, and I commend the courage of the RUC, the reserve, the UDR, the British Army, the judges, the judiciary, people working in the law courts and the prisons, and the whole community, who are trying to stand against the dangers, often at much personal risk.

Mr. Ian Gow: A moment ago my right hon. Friend referred to the Libyan connection. Are diplomatic relations between Dublin and Tripoli still maintained?

Mr. King: Yes, Sir. That is my understanding.

Mr. David Alton: Does the Secretary of State agree that if the RUC is to have the full confidence and support of the minority community it is important that the ghost of the Stalker inquiry is finally laid to rest? In conjunction with that, does he accept that the shoot-to-kill policy that has been exposed, the events that took place in 1982 in the hayshed in Ballyneery road, Lurgan, and the subsequent destruction of the tape


recordings that were made, are still something that the House must face? On whose orders were those tape recordings destroyed in 1982?

Mr. King: Many misunderstandings and misrepresentations have bedevilled this affair. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman used the phrase "shoot to kill". Shoot to kill is the wrong phrase. Does it mean shoot on sight, or without proper warning, or without observing the correct procedures for the use of force? Whatever it means, no evidence was identified and the Attorney-General made that clear to the House. That is important. I notice that one of my predecessors, the noble Lord Prior, has confirmed that, as far as his Office was concerned, no such policy was pursued.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I thank the Secretary of State for trying to clarify the definition of shoot to kill. Is that not somewhat at variance with the view expressed by the deputy chief constable of the RUC, who said that the unit was trained to act with the maximum speed, firepower and aggression?

Mr. King: The suggestion that the unit was to do that outside the rules of engagement and correct practice is not true. That, too, is important. It is well known that that was a clear finding that was endorsed by Mr. Sampson, and it needs to he put clearly on the record.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell the House that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) made a statement that it would be well into the 21st century before the nationalist people supported the RUC? Will he make it clear that that is what the people of Northern Ireland are up against?

Mr. King: I have often expressed my concern from the Dispatch Box for the fullest support for the security forces. I think that the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) may have misunderstood my remarks, on an earlier occasion, which were in no sense a personal affront to him; they had to do only with the sort of issues that arise. I recall occasions when there were plans for marches in Ballynahinch and Limavady, when the RUC and the Army turned out, with young 18-year-old soldiers, perhaps experiencing such an event for the first time, to defend and protect the nationalist community. Given the sort of risks that the RUC undertakes on behalf of all the community, it is entitled to expect the open and avowed support of every elected politician and responsible representative.
I understand some of the difficulties and the background but if we are to rise above the problems of past years we must recognise that the RUC has made a determined effort to work for all the community in Northern Ireland and it is entitled to find a response from the nationalist community.

Mr. Mallon: I regret having to interrupt again, but I cannot allow that point to pass without clarifying it. Some definition of acceptance is needed. Is the Secretary of State making a distinction, as he should, between the acceptance of and support for the police carrying out their duties impartially, and saying—accurately—that we shall not arrive for a considerable period of time at a day when the police will be indigenous to the communities in which they — even now — do not live, and people in those communities will he able to join the police service and support it in that way? There is a world of difference

between acceptance and the creation of a police service that is indigenous to every part of the community in the north of Ireland.

Mr. King: When we analyse the problems we want to be clear where the blame lies. We know that the blame lies with the people who are determined, as terrorists, to intimidate everybody out of supporting the police force.
We are aware of the problems experienced by Catholics joining the police force. I remember visiting the old Enniskillen training centre and being told about a lad who turned up from the Bogside to join the RUC. A message was given to him, quite quickly, that that was not a terribly good idea if his family wanted to continue living in the Bogside.
While everyone would like members of the police force to be drawn from the local indigenous community, at the present time other methods must be used. The police are doing their best for both communities and I hope that they will receive support in so doing.
A great debt is owed to the RUC, but the present position in Northern Ireland is under the spotlight. One is conscious of the fact that events of earlier years are influencing attitudes. I have expressed my regret that those factors should cut across the public's perception of a force that, in recent years, has given outstanding service. I hope that people throughout Northern Ireland will recognise the RUC as it is today and not dwell on the problems with which it has been faced in the past, which we have been seeking to tackle.
The RUC deserves public support because it has achieved major successes against the threat with which it has been faced. In the past five months alone there have been five major arms finds. Significantly, as the House knows, there have been two major finds in the Republic. There have been Republican and nationalist arms finds. The apprehension of the Eksund, which many initially thought had solved the problem, was perhaps merely a warning of the scale of the problem that we would face, and recent evidence has proved that to be the case.
In paying tribute to the security forces in Northern Ireland, I should like to express my appreciation of the achievements of the Garda in recent months. They have helped to prevent the possibility of appalling carnage and suffering in Northern Ireland. There has been co-operation with the Irish Government and the supply line of weaponry has been revealed. The search by 7,000 personnel — which was the biggest ever—that led to those weapons finds is evidence enough of the increasing commitment of the Republic. Their efforts, together with the security forces and the attraction of the greatest possible support of the community in Northern Ireland, are vital components of the effective response against terrorism.
I sense a growing anger and resentment in Northern Ireland at the pointlessness of the terrorist campaign. I understand very well the problems that traditionally the security forces may have faced in some parts of the nationalist community.
The 1978 and 1987 Acts, which the order seeks to renew, ensure that the security forces can effectively discharge their responsibilities to the community and provide the maximum protection against terrorism. They further seek to strike a delicate balance between that maximum protection and the rights of the individual. Against that balance, I commend the order to the House.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I join the Secretary of State in expressing support for the security forces in Northern Ireland and the Republic and appreciation of the work that they do on our behalf and of the dangers that they run on behalf of all members of the community.
I trust that we can now return to the proper use of the Intergovernmental Conference for discussing many of these matters, so that we do not have what the Secretary of State called "megaphone diplomacy across the Irish sea." Had the Attorney-General had the benefit of the Intergovernmental Conference, some of the recent difficulties would not have arisen.
This is the first opportunity that the House has had to consider the emergency provisions Acts since the modest alterations that were made to the 1978 Act last year. We supported the 1987 legislation because, although it failed to include the major reforms that we should have liked, there were some minor improvements. Nevertheless, the Government did not accept any of the major amendments that were proposed by the Opposition. The legislation continues to provide for internment by Executive fiat without access to the due process of the law; it continues to provide for a too high proportion of jury-less trials in Northern Ireland; it contains no significant changes to the Diplock system; it continues to certify out cases to be tried with a jury rather than certifying them in; and it continues to allow extraordinary powers of search and detention by the Army.
When we look at the proposed reforms, which we relied on the Government to carry out, we find that the codes of practice have yet to materialise, that the RUC code of conduct has yet to be published and, more important, that the promised Government statement to limit the time that people spend on remand before trial has yet to be implemented.
Some of those criticisms have not arisen simply because of tardiness by the Government. In his letter to the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights about the publication of its latest report, the Secretary of State said that he had no intention of making the changes that had been urged on the Government by the Labour party and by right hon. and hon. Members in other parts of the House. That is because the Government are happy with the present extraordinary legislation. They are complacent about its effects on people in Northern Ireland and, apparently, they are unperturbed by the recent deterioration in Anglo-Irish relations. That was so when I was writing this speech, but since then we have seen certain signs of contrivance from the Secretary of State.
In that context, reluctantly, but because of the lack of progress by the Government in all the matters that we regard as important, we are concerned about the renewal of what remains a counter-productive and anti-civil libertarian piece of legislation.
In particular, the Government have refused to face the challenge of the definition of "lethal force"—a question that was very much to the forefront over the shooting of Mr. Aidan McAnespie last Sunday and the release of Private Thain. It may be shown that Mr. McAnespie was killed as the result of a tragic accident, but, whatever the cause, it has served to highlight the fact that between 1969 and 1987 the security forces have been responsible for the

deaths of 304 people in Northern Ireland, of whom the majority—167—had no paramilitary connections; they were civilians.
Five years ago, the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights called on the Government to consider embodying strengthened rules on the use of lethal force in the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987 — a recommendation to which the Labour party attempted to give effect. The Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights described the use of lethal force,
as one of the most controversial aspects of the security situation in recent years.
The law has been criticised as being "too vague" and "out of date." The test of "reasonableness" in the use of such force was "too lax" and might contravene the European Convention on Human Rights. The commission stated that the circumstances pertaining in Northern Ireland required
amendment to the law to embody more clearly the view of Parliament as to the general nature of the circumstances in which potentially lethal force might be used.
Again, this year, it noted that the 1987 Act had not amended the law, which remained "vague and unsatisfactory."
Viscount Colville, in his first review of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Act 1987, noted that the failure to legislate on the issue in the 1987 Act meant that the options available to the court when deaths occurred as a result of action by the security forces was either complete acquittal, which, he said, the victim's family and the community tended to think outrageous, or conviction for murder "with mandatory life sentence", which many thought too harsh.
Ironically, Viscount Colville cited the case of Private Thain. I wonder whether, at the time of writing, he knew that he was out of prison and that he was back in the Army, having served less than three years of his life sentence.
Lord Colville pointed out that an amendment to allow for a verdict of manslaughter,
would go some way to satisfying the community
and,
would also be just to members of the security forces.
I trust that we might see that coming into operation.
The question of the use of lethal force lies at the heart of the Stalker affair. Had clear legal guidelines on the use of lethal force existed in 1982 we might have been spared the past five years or so of controversy.
Earlier this month, I said that Labour wanted justice in Northern Ireland—not a quick execution in a field, not undercover death squads and no "dirty war." I used those words because it is in precisely those terms that some in the Province see British justice and others—often evil men—seek to represent it.
If the Government had set out to do their best to undermine and destroy all the good work of the past two and a half years in rebuilding confidence among Nationalists in the administration of justice and the rule of law—and confidence in the RUC—they could have done no better than they did over the Stalker affair and subsequent events. Mr. John Stalker, the then deputy chief constable of Greater Manchester, was asked to investigate the deaths of six people, five of whom, we now know, had paramilitary connections. One was an apolitical youth of 17.
Basically, the scenario was that a hayshed was under surveillance, the IRA put explosives in the hayshed, the RUC was aware of that fact and bugged the hayshed, but the bug failed. The IRA took out its explosives, which were used in a culvert bomb, which tragically exploded, killing three policemen at Kinnego.
Sir John Hermon knew of the bugging of the hayshed, according to RTE's "Today, Tonight" programme of 30 October 1986, and he asked an investigating officer at the scene of the Kinnego blast, "Were these the explosives the force was supposed to be watching?"
If that account is accurate, a number of questions arise with regard to the Chief Constable. They were broadcast on RTE's programme, but we still have no answers to them. Perhaps the Minister will answer them. Did Sir John know of the renewed surveillance even before Michael Tighe was shot? Did he know of the tape's existence, while the Director of Public Prosecutions, Sir Barry Shaw, was ignorant of this crucial evidence? Did he know of the tape and its existence in secret, while Stalker was initially kept in the dark?
There is also the question whether the then Secretary of State, Mr. James Prior, or the other Minister then responsible for security, Lord Gowrie, was aware of the electronic surveillance in the hayshed. But there is more, because we now know that there was not only an original tape but a copy. As Lady Bracknell might have said, to lose one tape may be regarded as a misfortune, but to lose both looks like carelessness—or a deliberate attempt to suppress evidence of criminal negligence.
If the RUC destroyed its tape before Mr. Stalker discovered its existence, and merely had a transcript of it, how was it that the MI5 copy was "weeded" after a senior MI5 representative said that he had no objection to Stalker's hearing the tape? Was he aware that MI5 had its own tape which he could have let Mr. Stalker hear? Is it not strange that a tape was weeded that certainly had on it the sound of gunshots and either the shouting of warnings before the opening of fire or the reaction of people after shots had been fired? One way or another, the tape would have cleared up the conflict of evidence between MacCauley and the RUC. To say that this was routine weeding out of a tape with gunshots heard on it beggars the imagination. It appears that it may have been weeded after it was learnt that Mr. Stalker was seeking to get the tape—a fact certainly already known to MI5, if it had not already reached the news media.
It was the deaths and the apparent cover-up that led to the accusation that the British were operating a shoot-to-kill policy in Northern Ireland. Stalker said he found no evidence
of a formal, officially endorsed policy".
Mr. Sampson found the same. The Government and the RUC, on the basis of that fact, claim that no such shoot-to-kill policy existed. Who are we, in the face of such assurances, to argue otherwise? Except that that is not quite what Mr. Stalker said. He said:
the circumstances of those shootings pointed to a Police inclination, if not a policy, to shoot suspects dead without warning, rather than to arrest them
and he believed that
heavily armed, psyched-up officers were being sent out to meet terrorists head-on, and they felt justified in shooting on sight".

Mr. Campbell-Savours: It is being said in Northern Ireland that the Secretary of State has been told that it was

Sir John Hermon who instructed other officers to destroy the tape. Can the Secretary of State now deny that he has been told that Sir John Hermon gave the instruction? Will he come to the Dispatch Box and say that now?

Mr. Alton: rose—

Mr. McNamara: If the Secretary of State wishes to intervene, I shall give way. Otherwise, I give way to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton).

Mr. Alton: When I met Sir John Hermon a week ago and put that very question to him, I was given the clear understanding that the tape had been destroyed some time after the events had occurred. I was left in no doubt that that had nothing whatever to do with the RUC. That is why it is crucial that this matter should be cleared up. The RUC is being undermined, and the confidence of the minority part of the community is being undermined, because people are uncertain who was responsible for the events. That is why we cannot tell whether there was a clear policy or whether there was simply an implication, as the hon. Gentleman puts it.

Mr. McNamara: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will join the Labour party in demanding a judicial inquiry.
Of course, all this happened during a period of rampant terrorism, as Sir John Hermon says, and the figures bear it out. Are we so other-worldly that we cannot understand the attitude of mind that prevailed at that time—an attitude of mind that might lead responsible people to say to those given the job of combating rampant terrorism on the ground, "I don't want to know what you are doing, but I hope you enjoy doing it" — the Pontius Pilate syndrome?
We can understand such attitudes amongst senior officers and even politicians and it is my view that there was no formal shoot-to-kill policy. However, I believe that there was the wink, the nod, the turning of the blind eye. Emotion rather than reason prevailed, and that was a pity for the rule of law in Northern Ireland.
There is enough in what I have said so far to justify a judicial inquiry such as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has been calling for since the Attorney-General's statement on 25 January. There are other reasons, and we must look at them. There is the question of the role of the Prime Minister in this affair.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman has made a number of pretty serious allegations, some of which he has attributed to Stalker and some of which he has adopted himself. Where is his evidence to support the charge specifically that senior officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary sent others out with a nod and a wink to break the criminal law? How does he know that?

Mr. McNamara: In the trial for murder, Mr. Robinson stated that he was told to lie about the situation by his superior officers and that he was told to say that events happened in other places. We know from the Stalker report—this is yet to be corrected by the Government—that alterations were made to records of the movement of cars, the places where people were and the places where events happened.
Therefore, one is entitled to use another quotation, which I shall come to later and which will deal with the point made by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds, (Sir E. Griffiths.) However, I would say again that the hon.


Gentleman should condemn the Government for not allowing us a public inquiry, which would enable us to know the facts. Those whom the hon. Gentleman represents in the House could only benefit from that.
Of course, much could have been avoided if the McDermot report of 1970 to the Northern Ireland Government, which recommended that the DPP in Northern Ireland should be independent and not responsible to the Attorney-General, had been accepted. We should not then have been in this mess. It might help if we re-examined the McDermot report and if the Government introduced legislation on those lines to prevent a recurrence of these events.
We start with the problem that the Prime Minister regards the police in the same way as she regards the security services—as her personal preserve and subject to the Government rather than to an independent body. She equates the national interest with that of the Tory Government of the day. Thus, in statements from Downing street, a member of the police force was referred to as "the Government's employee" —presumably that came from the Prime Minister's "familiar", the head of the press office. When we have the Prime Minister and her office starting off with that kind of attitude to the police, striking at the constitutional doctrine of their independence, is it any wonder that there is lack of confidence?
Then we have the Prime Minister's response to the whole of the tragedy in Northern Ireland. Her emotion rules her head, and we understand the personal reasons for some of her emotions and we have every sympathy with her. However, if she were not in such a hurry to score emotional points and to demonstrate on the media last Thursday night the depth of her emotional upset, the situation might be better. She accused of murder those of my constituents, and constituents of hon. and right hon. Members throughout the House, who took it upon themselves to combat terrorism while serving in Northern Ireland as members of Her Majesty's forces. She spoke of 2,600 people in Northern Ireland, since the start of the recent troubles, as having been murdered. Yet, if we look at the figures we find that of those 2,627 deaths—that is far too many and none of them can be justified in any way —by the end of 1987, 304 were killed by the security forces and 55 per cent. of them were civilians.
Everybody deplores any death, and condemns strongly the murders by paramilitaries on both sides, but I would hesitate to call 304 deaths at the hands of the security forces — 169 of them civilians with no known paramilitary connections — "murders". The Prime Minister must be careful in the way that she uses words because she can destroy a good case.
It could be, of course, that the Prime Minister, as head of the Secret Service, knows things that we do not in this regard, and to which we are not privy. I hope that that is not the case. Or perhaps, once again, it was an occasion when the Prime Minister allowed her emotion to overcome her reason, and used figures like confetti at a Moonie wedding. She was quick to say in her recent discussions with the Taoiseach, "This is an emotional problem and you don't defeat emotion with reason", but we will win only if we are rational in our approach.
Therefore, we have called for a judicial inquiry because we believe that the Attorney-General could not conceivably have reached his conclusion that the public

interest and national security dictated that members of the RUC should not be prosecuted for conspiracy to pervert the course of justice, despite compelling evidence that they had so conspired, without consulting the Prime Minister. She gave her advice as head of the security forces, emotionally involved, blinkered in her reaction to what the result of that decision might be for the safety of our troops on the streets in Northern Ireland and the success of the campaign against the men of violence. She must have been consulted. She must have been aware of, or had the ultimate responsibility as head of the secret services for, their role in the Stalker affair—the role of MI5, the planting of the bugs.
Therefore, we understand the truculence that the Prime Minister displayed in her answer last Thursday to my hon. Friend the Member for Foyle (Mr. Hume) and to the demands made by the leaders of the Ulster Unionist party and the Democratic Unionist party that the buck should not stop with junior, or even senior, officers of the RUC. There is political and security force involvement.
We know also that there are senior politicians who adopted the attitude, "I don't want to know what you are doing, but are you enjoying it?" and knew of the existence of those special RUC units. In fact, in 1979, when first in her new job as Prime Minister, when the crescendo was building up, at the height of the IRA campaign, the Prime Minister herself visited the highly secret Bessbrook support unit. The account in The Irish Times refers to Mrs. Thatcher approaching to meet the men of that unit from a helicopter:
When it landed, Mrs. Thatcher strolled towards the BSU men with her characteristic purposefulness, pausing only to glare over her shoulder at Denis who had fallen down the helicopter steps.
An ex-BSU man takes up the story: 'She came up to us and said "so you're the special unit we've heard about?" and then she started shaking hands and talking to each man. I remember her saying: "I don't know what you're doing, but are you enjoying it?" … She kept on congratulating our Inspector, calling him by his Christian name, saying what a good job the men were doing and "long may you continue."'
The question to which we need to know the answer is "Did the attitude reflected in the phrase, 'I don't know what you're doing' permeate the whole of her Administration at that time and until the fatal shootings?" Was it, as Mr. Stalker later said:
What I did get was a feeling that an atmosphere was raised to such an extent and the adrenalin was flowing to such a level that the feeling was 'OK, dead or alive we'll be protected to some extent. We're soldiers really, in Police uniform, and we can probably justify deaths afterwards because we are in a war.', but I never found that there was any suggestion that there was a 'shoot-to-kill' policy. It was a feeling of 'Let's do it to them before they do it to us.'
As those men were trained in speed and aggression of response, as members of the headquarters' mobile support units, that seems to be close to an unofficial shoot-to-kill policy that was at that time in operation in those very difficult situations in that part of Northern Ireland, where terrorism was rampant. That is why we believe that we should have a judicial inquiry — because there is evidence, innuendo and rumour, which will be referred to continually during the debate. When the Secretary of State calls on us for evidence, the answer is that that evidence, if it exists, is in the reports which none of us has yet been allowed to see and which the country has a right to know about. Because of the cover-up over the tapes and the concoctions of stories, we still do not know—perhaps the Minister will tell us when he replies to the debate—


whether the cover-up story that was sanctioned in the Robinson case was first telephoned through to headquarters at Knock in Belfast, as has been alleged.
Northern Ireland is a very dangerous and very unhappy place. The Prime Minister's decision, as head of the security forces, and the Attorney-General's decision, with regard to no prosecutions following the Stalker-Sampson inquiry, have undermined the rule of law, and confidence in the RUC. Secret disciplinary procedures behind closed doors are no substitute. It is a nasty story, a grubby tale, with the fingerprints of the Prime Minister all over it. The hayshed tape lies at the heart of this story — [Interruption.] Well, she is head of the security forces and was consulted by the Attorney-General.
The Government still have the opportunity to come clean, by having a judicial inquiry under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1971 to look at the Stalker affair, the shoot-to-kill policy—if there was one—the cover-up and the roles of the Prime Minister, the Attorney-General and the security forces.
We are not seeking to find scapegoats — the Government are doing that. We seek to find the truth—the first casualty in this tragic affair. If, out of all this sorry mess, we could at least have the truth, in the end it might have been worth it. At least we could face the future with some degree of confidence.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not really believe that this House or the country on this side of the Irish sea really understands what is going on in Northern Ireland. As Members of Parliament, we discover that if there is an incident such as has been discussed at length by the spokesman for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), there will be a great hue and cry and a great parliamentary hubbub. However, when one looks at what is happening in Northern Ireland and sees how innocent people and those who are trying to do their duty in defending all sections of the community are being mown down and murdered, there seems a great silence. It is a thundering silence so far as the people of Northern Ireland are concerned.
The hon. Members for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross), for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe), for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker) are in gaol tonight. I utterly and totally deplore the fact that we are having this debate tonight; all Members representing Northern Ireland should have had an opportunity to be present in the House on this occasion because this is the first opportunity that Northern Ireland Members, who represent the people of Northern Ireland through the ballot box, have had to discuss these events in a debate in this House.
Today is supposed to be devoted to Northern Ireland business, but we have had a long statement about the privatisation of electricity and we are told that at 7 o'clock this debate is to cease. That is a real outrage to the people of Northern Ireland. It is a crying shame that it is tonight that such issues are before us that should be debated in this House—it is better that they are debated in the House. I do not agree with what the spokesman for the Opposition said, but then he would not agree with many things that I say. It is better to discuss such matters in the House and it is better that the people of Northern Ireland should know that their representatives have an opportunity to say what has to be said in the House.
The Unionists of Northern Ireland can discuss their affairs in an Anglo-Irish Conference, of which we know nothing because it is all done in secret. It has been revealed that the understanding of both parties in the Anglo-Irish Conference is really a misunderstanding. Last night, we were informed by the Secretary of State that the next meeting of the Anglo-Irish Conference would be attended by the two chiefs of the police forces in the North and the South. The Secretary of State had hardly left Dublin than a strong statement was made that that was not the case. In fact, Mr. Lenihan told us that they might discuss the fair employment position — or the unfair employment position, whichever way one looks at it—at the next meeting. The people of Northern Ireland are involved in that. We have to pay the price, but we are never told anything.
At 7 o'clock tonight, the axe will come down. If we want to wait until 10 o'clock, we can, by the grace arid favour of the powers that be, have an hour and a half and, at 11.30, go home.

Mr. Martin Flannery: For many years the hon. Gentleman and I have differed profoundly on Northern Ireland, but on this issue I completely agree with him. For us to have a debate split up in this way shows that somebody does not see the issue of Northern Ireland in its proper perspective. It is disgraceful that this situation has been thrust upon us.

Rev. Ian Paisley: All right-thinking people in Northern Ireland, and the right-thinking Members of the House who are interested in Northern Ireland debates—although not many are and I have been in the House long enough to know that not many people stay throughout any debate —know that the Secretary of State is only answerable to the House. He goes down to Dublin and answers the Ministers there, but he is not responsible to them. He does not need to answer to them; he is responsible to the House and to the people of Northern Ireland. However, we have been robbed of our rights.
When we did not come to the House, we were told that we should be at the House. Then, when we come to the House, we are not given enough time to debate. In fact, one fellow asked me what I was doing here and said that I should be away home. The situation has deteriorated into a farce for the people of Northern Ireland. The House should conduct its business in such a way that all the people of Northern Ireland will know that these matters are being treated with great seriousness, no matter what side of the fence one is on.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: In fact, we may not even resume the debate at 10 o'clock. There could be two Divisions, following the private business, which means that the debate might not resume until 10.30, which would mean that this crucial debate will have been reduced to about two and three quarter hours.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I think that we shall also have another one and a half hours, but what time of the night will that be? Moreover, the people of Northern Ireland are anxious to know what the House is doing, and at that late hour there will be no press coverage. The Secretary of State has it in his power to say that the debate will be adjourned at 7 o'clock and resumed on another day. That would help everyone. It would also mean that those Members who are in gaol could attend.
Let me just say that the men in gaol tonight would not be there if they were Members of Parliament on this side of the water. The law on parades in Northern Ireland is different from the law on this side of the water. Here one must give six days' notice; there one must give seven days' notice. Those men would not be in prison at all if they had made their protests on this side of the water.
Why were the powers that be anxious that Unionists should not be in the House tonight? Were they afraid of what the Unionists would say? Were they afraid of the Ulster representatives taking part in the debate?

Mr. Mallon: I find myself in the unique situation of agreeing with the hon. Gentleman on this. Would it not be as well to have clarification now, because those of us who wish to speak want to leave time for everyone to make a contribution? If we had such clarification now we would be better able to facilitate other hon. Members.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Let me try to help hon. Members. If the private business comes on at 7 o'clock before this debate is concluded, this debate will be resumed at the concluson of private business at 10 o'clock or before, as the case may be. If Divisions take us beyond 10 o'clock, the debate on Northern Ireland business can go on until 11.30.

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that the order that follows will have another hour and a half, and that will have some relevance to what we are debating now?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, that is the case. At the conclusion of the debate on this order, even though that may be after 10 o'clock, the subsequent order will then have up to one and a half hours.

Sir John Biggs-Davison: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you allow me to give notice that I shall not rise again to intervene in the debate, but I wish to protest, as I have often protested, at the handling of Northern Ireland business.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Let me make a plea to the Secretary of State. It is in his power at 7 o'clock to move that the debate be adjourned. If there is agreement with the other side, the debate could be resumed next week. This is my only opportunity to speak, and it is difficult for me not to say what I have to say. My constituents will ask why I did not say certain things and they will not understand if I say that I had only a few minutes and had to allow time for others to speak. People in Northern Ireland believe that we can talk for as long as we like, but that is not the way of the House. If English Members of Parliament were treated as we have been treated tonight, there would be one unholy row in the House. They would not tolerate it. I am making a plea to the Secretary of State to adjourn the debate at 7 o'clock.
Did the Secretary of State know that there would be a long statement today, or did he think that we would be able to start this debate earlier? That would have allowed at least some semblance of time to carry on this debate. The Secretary of State has it within his power to give this debate an airing in the way that I have suggested. I invite him to tell us whether he is prepared to do so.

Mr. Tom King: The hon. Gentleman knows that the business of the House is not a matter for me but I am

sympathetic to the problem that hon. Members face. I shall look into the matter and see whether there is any possibility of his request being met, but there is still some uncertainty about the time that we have today. Unfortunately, many hon. Members wanted to question the Secretary of State for Energy on his statement today and there was bound to be a business statement, which obviously contributed to the problem. I shall look into the matter, but I do not know whether anything can be done.

Mr. McNamara: We should like to have a reply by 7 o'clock.

Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you are now in the Chair, perhaps you will clarify the position. We are led to believe that, at 7 o'clock, there will be an interruption for opposed private business. If that lasts until 10 o'clock, an hour and a half will remain for this business. If there are two Divisions on the private business, it will probably finish at half past 10 and we shall have an hour and half after that for this business.
In your absence, Mr. Speaker, I have been making a protest, for which there has been support from both sides of the House, about the fact that we have no time to discuss a vital matter in respect of Northern Ireland. It is now 20 minutes past 6. The two official spokemen have had an opportunity to state their position, and it is now the turn of Back Benchers to do so.

Mr. Speaker: I can tell the hon. Gentleman, as I did earlier, that this debate will be interrupted at 7 o'clock and that we shall return to it after the conclusion of the opposed private business. If that is concluded before 10 o'clock, we shall return to this debate before 10 o'clock, but this debate can continue until 11.30 pm and the following debate can continue for a further hour and a half.

Mr. Gow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As I understand it, if at 10 o'clock there were one, two or even three Divisions, a quarter of an hour, half an hour or three quarters of an hour would be denied to this debate. Is that right?

Mr. Speaker: The Question on this motion will be put at 11.30 pm, so this debate can go until 11.30 pm. The time taken up by the Division will not affect subsequent debates. I was not in the Chair when the matter was first raised, so I am not totally seized of the problem.

Mr. Gow: You, Mr. Speaker, have confirmed the worst fears of all hon. Members. If there are one, two or three Divisions on the opposed private business at 10 o'clock the time taken on those Divisions will be lost to this debate.

Mr. Speaker: Yes, that would be correct. Some time for this debate would be lost. The debate may continue only until 11.30 pm, so, if there were a number of Divisions at 10 o'clock, I fear that some time would be lost.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I believe that I am in somewhat of an impasse. I do not believe that I am being permitted to put my case. We want to put our case and we want to hear the answer from the Front Bench.
Certain charges have been made from the Opposition Front Bench tonight and other hon. Members will be asking questions. If the debate continues until 10 to 7, we shall have a hotch-potch of an answer. No one will have the opportunity to obtain a proper answer. We are now told that, if Divisions continue until 10.45 pm, we shall


have only three quarters of an hour to finish the debate. I support the comment of the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow), that it is not fair to ask people to debate the matter in this way. I hope that Ministers will tell us quickly whether they are prepared to do as I have suggested, and adjourn the debate.
I wish to bring a number of matters to the attention of the House. I speak under a considerable strain tonight because, as I said in an earlier question to the Prime Minister, a member of my own church was murdered last night in the city of Belfast. He was a young man to whom I recently spoke about his marriage. He was planning to marry a young lady from my church. His death hangs very heavily on me. I have not been able to be at home because I have been performing my duties in Brussels and I feel very sore about the matter.
Some buildings have been removed from Royal avenue in the centre of Belfast. Laing, the contractors, are busy on a development which takes in the old Smithfield market area. To protect that building site, they erected a large hoarding on the Royal avenue site. A patrol had to take up duty near that hoarding and, because of that hoarding, there was a blind side that the patrol could not keep properly under surveillance.
The members of the Ulster Defence Regiment on that patrol said to their commanding officer, "Look, we need to have something done so that we are not a sitting target for an assassination attempt." Evidently, the matter was examined and the officer concerned—no doubt his rank will be disclosed in the examination promised by the Prime Minister today—is reported to have said, "No, we can't do anything. If you don't like what you are asked to do, you can leave the regiment."
Those young men were not objecting to their duty, but they have been told over and over again to watch themselves. They were on the ground and they knew the type of attack that could be launched upon them. Such an attack was launched upon them and today two families are plunged into the depths of sorrow as a result of what has taken place.
I do not wish to comment further on that, but I look forward to a proper examination of the facts and an investigation of what has occurred. The men were trying to do their duty efficiently and effectively and to keep up the high standards in respect of safety measures in which they were trained. If an officer said to them, "If you don't like what you are asked to do, resign from the regiment," that officer will have to be dealt with and disciplined.
Those men give, after hours, their services to the Ulster Defence Regiment to defend every section of the community and they should be given due respect by their commanding officers. The matter of the hoarding also needs to be investigated.
I started this speech by saying that I did not think that people in this House and on this side of the water know what is happening in Northern Ireland. On 17 January, a constituent of mine, young Stephen Tweed, who lives between Ballymena and Ballymoney on the outskirts of a village known as Dunloy — he is a Government employee and a part-time soldier in the Ulster Defence Regiment—was driving, with his girl friend, down the lane to his father's farmhouse. Forty one bullets were pumped into his car by two Armalite rifles in the hands of two members of the Irish Republican Army. I have visited

the scene and looked at the car. It is a miracle that anybody came out of that car alive. Both the boy and his girl friend escaped without a scratch.
Just after that event, there appeared on the sign of an old school wall, in large writing, the words:
Tweed goes on, hut not for long",
followed by the registration number of his car and signed by the IRA. That has been on the wall of the old school for days in an area which is strongly infiltrated by the IRA, inciting and inviting a further attack on the man and his home. If that had happened in England, the police would immediately have obliterated the sign because it is an incitement to murder. I have gone to the police in Ballymoney. I have told them that the sign should be erased. They agreed, but said that the owner of the property is not in sympathy with taking the sign off; he objects to anyone removing it.
These are some of the things which are happening in Northern Ireland. I am trying to show the House what we are up against. Before I came into the debate, I rang the police and was informed that the sign is still there, but that they were working on it. I said, "Superintendent, that is not good enough. The sign is inciting people to carry out a murder which has been attempted and has failed. If it was in any other part of the community, it would have been dealt with immediately."
Some hon. Members have applied strictures to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. It is all right when Royal Ulster Constabulary members are beating the heads of Protestants in Portadown: then there are cheers from he Opposition. In fact, a leading member of the same party as the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), Councillor Briege Rodgers, had something to say about Portadown. She said that Portadown was the capital of Protestantism and that if the Protestants were beaten there, they would be beaten everywhere. That was her attitude. I have heard hon. Members speak of the great work which the RUC did in beating up Protestants who wanted to walk through a certain area. It is important that the House gets to grips with the position and knows exactly what is happening.
What about Mr. Stephen Tweed? He was visited by a member of the security forces who handed him a·22 pistol and told him that he could protect himself. Any hon. Member who thinks that a pea-shooter of that strength is any protection for a man—

Mr. Mallon: The hon. Gentleman should know.

Rev. Ian Paisley: —who is under such tremendous threat should have his head examined. It is all right for the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) to comment. He has set up many UDR men.

Mr. Frank Haynes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Gentleman was complaining about the time available for hon. Members from Northern Ireland in the debate. He has spoken now for nearly half an hour and he will leave hardly enough time for other hon. Members. He is being totally unfair to the House.

Mr. Alton: On a further point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) may wish to reflect on the comment he has just made about an hon. Member setting up a member of the UDR. I hope he will withdraw that remark.

Mr. Speaker: I am not responsible for what is said. However, the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) has been speaking for rather a long time.

Rev. Ian Paisley: There are four Members from Northern Ireland in the House. We are getting until 7 o'clock. The Government Front Bench spokesman — [Interruption.] We were told by the managers of the business that an arrangement had been made by the two Front Benches to get the business over by 7 o'clock. We were no party to that arrangement.

Mr. Speaker: Nor was I. I have already told the hon. Member that the debate may go on after 10 o'clock, or even before that if the opposed private business is over.

Mr. James Kilfedder: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can we find out from the Secretary of State, through yourself, whether the Government have agreed to adjourn the debate at 7 o'clock to another occasion when we will have sufficient time to discuss this serious matter?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me. Let us wait until we get to 7 o'clock.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It would be better for the House if we knew before that. It is unfair to the House and to other hon. Members — [Interruption.] Hon. Members may heckle me as much as they like. [AN HON. MEMBER: "The hon. Gentleman will still be speaking at 7 o'clock."] That is all right. It would not be the first time that I had talked out a debate. Opposition Members too have talked out debates. [Interruption.] I am glad that that came from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh, because we know that when a stone is thrown among a lot of dogs the one that is hit the hardest yelps the loudest. I am happy about his remark.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) does not seem to know much about Northern Ireland. He should read the records of the first Assembly, when he will find out that Unionists refused to sit with the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh because of the things which he had said about the UDR. If he would like more information about the UDR, perhaps he should remember that his friend Dick Spring and his friend Dr. FitzGerald said after the Anglo-Irish Agreement was signed that it would be the end of the UDR. So there has been an attempt to discredit the UDR and to attack its members.

Mr. Alton: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that there is a world of difference between saying that an hon. Member has discredited the UDR or disagrees with things which it has done and saying that an hon. Member tried to set up members of the UDR which gave the clear impression that the hon. Member had been involved in organising events which led to UDR men losing their lives.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is very easy to set up people in Northern Ireland. Two police officers were named in the House by the Opposition Front Bench; the names were not even right, but those men were set up as soon as they were mentioned. Someone has only to say that the UDR is a pack of murderers and its members are set up in the same way as RUC officers have been.

Mr. Peter Robinson: Is it not the case that in 1975 and in 1987 the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) made statements attacking the

integrity of UDR members and the partisanship of the organisation, and within days the IRA replied to his comments by killing members of the regiment?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I want to return to the young man who has been set up by the IRA for a further attack on his life. He has been offered a ·22 pistol to defend himself. There is not a police officer in London, a comparatively peaceful city, who is asked to carry out the protection of Government officers with only a ·22 pistol. Yet that is all the protection offered to a man who has had 41 bullets pumped into his car, who is in danger of being wiped out, and who has a sign 100 yards from the farmhouse inciting people to kill him. I would be failing in my duty as Member of Parliament for the area, no matter what hon. Members think of me and no matter what agitation goes on about parliamentary time, if I did not raise that matter in the House this evening. That is my duty, and I shall do my duty, whether it is popular or unpopular with this House.
It is scandalous for any two parties in this House to make an arrangement for 7 o'clock involving Northern Ireland business, and thinking that they can do it because they have five Unionist Members comfortably behind bars. That is something that the people of Northern Ireland will not tolerate, and something that I, as a Member of this House, will vigorously protest against.
Serious events are taking place in Northern Ireland at present. Everyone there knows that a large consignment of sophisticated and powerful weaponry has been brought into Northern Ireland, and into the Irish Republic. The Garda in the South are alarmed; Mr. Haughey himself is alarmed; the authorities here are alarmed.
I have heard it said that the search in the South came about because of the Anglo-Irish Agreement. Let me disillusion the House. No search was made in the South as a result of any representations through the Anglo-Irish Conference. A message conveyed to the Gardai from the French police giving the facts about the shipment was what started the search. That is why Mr. Haughey asked for sophisticated search machinery, which he borrowed from the Northern Ireland authorities, to help his search.
Those of us who live in Northern Ireland keep our ears open, and we know what is happening. The search took place because Mr. Haughey saw that his Government could go down.
Is the House aware that in the hands of the IRA is a bomb which, if it alights on a Land Rover, can penetrate 6 in of steel and destroy it? [Interruption.] I am told that it is a grenade. On Monday night, I was at the bedside of a sergeant. The lower part of his body had been almost blown off in Coalisland. He needed 14 pints of blood, and was fighting for his life. I stood there with his wife and family.
What do hon. Members think is the morale of the policemen who now go out in Land Rovers knowing that in the hands of the terrorists is a bomb that can penetrate 6 in of steel and destroy them? These are facts that the House needs to know.
One of the Members of this House who are in prison tonight — the hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. McCusker), whose outspokenness is well known—said this in the House:
Is the House aware that, in the previous 11 years, five of the six men who were shot"—
this is what all the investigation is about—


and their associates—this is not intended to excuse any wrongdoing—had murdered 222 people in my constituency, 42 of whom were policemen, 35 of whom were UDR men, over 20 of whom were innocent Catholics and the rest were regular soldiers — constituents of hon. Members — and Protestants." — [Official Report, 17 February 1988; Vol. 127, c. 990.]
That is the background of what we are discussing tonight. We cannot discuss such a horrific background without keeping in mind the background of Northern Ireland.
I know that, if the campaign with these modern weapons is launched on the security forces, we shall be in the utmost difficulty. We only have to see helicopters shot out of the skies and aeroplanes brought down to see what will happen in Northern Ireland.
I see that the Secretary of State has returned to the Chamber. Perhaps he can tell us whether the debate will stop at 7 o'clock.
I now see that the Leader of the House has come in as well. I shall give way to him, if he wishes to make a statement. It seems that the Leader of the House is not going to make a statement. If he is intending to make one, however, it would be helpful to me if he made it now, so that I can judge the position.

The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way for a moment. I appreciate that the debate started rather late — that is just one of the things that happen here—and I understand that many hon. Members on both sides of the House wish to speak. Perhaps it would be for the convenience of the House if we adjourned the debate at 7 o'clock. I propose that it should be resumed at a convenient date, which I would discuss through the usual channels.

Mr. McNamara: We should be happy to accept that arrangement.

Mr. Gow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Now that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is here, let me say that many hon. Members on both sides of the House would doubtless like to take the opportunity of telling him that many people consider the arrangements for today's debate most unsatisfactory.
Having made that point, I hope that we will all join in saying to my right hon. Friend that we greatly appreciate the sensitive way in which he has handled the matter.

Mr. Alton: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I join the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) in thanking the Leader of the House for coming to the Dispatch Box to make his statement. Let me also join him in saying that the procedures that we use for dealing with Northern Ireland business are clearly wholly unsatisfactory. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will examine the way in which Standing Orders operate and Orders in Council are brought, and also the way in which very short periods are allocated to deal with matters of great sensitivity and political importance.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I thank the Leader of the House for his announcement. I also thank him on behalf of the Official Unionists who are not present in the House tonight. I think that everyone knows why they are not present. They adopted the same attitude as the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) and said that they would not seek to be called in the debate.
What the right hon. Gentleman has said is gratifying, and will be welcomed in Northern Ireland. It will show the people there that the House is prepared to take time to discuss these vital matters.

Mr. Tom King: The hon. Gentleman may at the same time be able to bring great relief to some of his hon. Friends who are at present languishing elsewhere. He explained that they are there because they are being treated differently from hon. Members in other parts of the House in having to give seven days' notice, whereas in England and Wales six days' notice is required. I am amazed to hear that explanation, which is based entirely on a failure to understand parliamentary draftsmanship. The time requirement for Northern Ireland is identical to that in the rest of the United Kingdom. He may wish, therefore, to advise those hon. Members that they are languishing in vain.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sorry that the Secretary of State has not read his own Order in Council. I am sorry that he does not know the difference between pieces of legislation that he sponsors in the House, and that he does not know the charges brought against those hon. Members. I was in court with them on the very same charges. How could they be brought to court for not giving seven days' notice if, as the Secretary of State has said, the law is the same as in the rest of the United Kingdom?
At another time I will speak in the House about the order on public order and I will show the Secretary of State in Hansard the provisions in that order that were not voted down by the House and are riot applicable in England and Wales. When will the Secretary of State have sense and tell the truth to the House? To come to the House and tell us that the public order order is the same as that for the rest of the United Kingdom is absolute tommy rot. I would use a stronger expression, Mr. Speaker, only you would call me to order.
I trust that the Secretary of State will now read his own legislation. The public order order in Northern Ireland is entirely different from the legislation in the rest of the United Kingdom.
The Secretary of State was wearing a great smile. He seems to enjoy the fact that those hon. Members are languishing in prison. I have news for him. He could put the Unionist leaders into prison for years, but it would not destroy their credibility with the people. When they take part in an election, they will be returned with overwhelming votes.

Mr. Mallon: Does the hon. Gentleman not see any contradiction in the situation prevailing at the present time, in which other hon. Members are languishing, as he puts it, in prison because of their opposition to the public order order, while if they were here they would be voting for the renewal of this piece of legislation?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I never said that they were languishing in prison. It was the Secretary of State who said that—the man who rejoices when Members of the House are in that situation. He says that he understands, but he does not understand. If he understood, he would realise that it would be better to keep elected leaders out of prison arid have them here in the House. For the day will come, if he keeps on doing what he is doing, when he will he faced wit h people of a different type, who will not bother with the constitutional way of doing things.
In this dangerous situation, when there are arms in the country from Libya and the position is constantly deteriorating, it ill becomes the Secretary of State to treat us with the contempt with which he has treated us tonight. I am sure that when the hon. Members come out of their short imprisonment, they will not have the same privilege as was given to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), who was locked in with a Republican rebel, especially chosen, no doubt, on the orders of the Secretary of State, thinking perhaps that he would be able to proselytise and convert the hon. Member. It was very interesting that the next day they removed the Republican quickly from the Protestant influence of that prison cell because they thought that he would be converted to proper convictions. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may laugh, and I can laugh, although I have been in prison many times and according to the public order order I shall be going again. But I shall stand up in court and read what the Secretary of State said—that I should not be there, that I have committed no crime—and we shall see what the DPP says in court about the Secretary of State.
We hear all this talk about Sinn Fein being isolated by the SDLP, that the SDLP is pushing Sinn Fein away. I want to tell the House what happened in the Magherafelt council the other night. The Sinn Fein members got up, after a vicious attack led by the godfather of terrorism, a man called Davey, who has set up many good men to be killed. He moved that Queen Elizabeth II—

Mr. McNamara: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but earlier he accused the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) of setting up UDR men. He has now accused somebody outside of setting up men to be killed. The implication of the use of that phrase is that he was saying the same about the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh. I think that the hon. Gentleman should be made to withdraw that, as happened with my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone).

Mr. Speaker: I hope that the hon. Member will withdraw, if that was what he was saying.

Rev. Ian Paisley: You can read Hansard, Mr. Speaker, and you will see exactly what I said. I am afraid that I cannot withdraw until you have done that, because this is not a correct statement.
The man I am talking about, Davey, is well known as an IRA godfather. If I am not allowed in the House—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am not talking about the gentleman outside the House whom the hon. Member mentioned; I am talking about an hon. Member inside the House.

Rev. Ian Paisley: All I am saying, Sir, is that you can read Hansard. I will bow to your ruling. If you read Hansard, no doubt you will get in touch with me and if you want me to do something no doubt you will tell me what it is. I am not promising that I will do it, but I will listen to what you have to say. That is all I can do.

Rev. William McCrea: Is it not strange that the spokesman for Her Majesty's Opposition, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), should call on the hon. Member to withdraw

in connection with the names that he has mentioned, when the hon. Gentleman himself named the members of the Royal Ulster Constabulary? It is all right naming an RUC member, but one cannot name an IRA man. It seems that the hon. Gentleman is more concerned to defend IRA men than to defend members of the RUC and the security forces.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Let us get back to Magherafelt council.

Mr. Mallon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek your direction in relation to this. I want it to be clearly understood that whether the hon. Gentleman withdraws or does not withdraw the remarks he made about me is of no interest and little relevance to me. But would it be your instruction that, if the hon. Gentleman were to accuse someone else of having set someone up for murder, that would be very unparliamentary indeed and you would require it to be clarified?

Mr. Speaker: As I understand it, the term "setting up" has a special relevance in Northern Ireland. It has not, I think, been considered an unparliamentary phrase previously in the Chamber. I am sure that the whole House will agree that all of us recognise the danger in which, sadly, hon. Members in Ulster live. I hope that nothing that is said here will inflame the situation or put their lives in danger.

Rev. Ian Paisley: No doubt, Mr. Speaker, you will read carefully what has been said and will be in touch with me about it. I have already made my position clear.

Mr. Gow: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way.

Rev Ian Paisley: I hope that the hon. Gentleman knows that, if he keeps speaking until 7 o'clock and I am still on my feet, I shall be called first the next time.

Mr. Gow: I wanted to raise a difference point when I asked the hon. Gentleman to give way to me. Since it was the hon. Gentleman who, with the assent of the whole House, wanted the debate to take place on another day, does he realise that he must sit down just before 7 o'clock? If he would like to sit down now, that might be of help to him, and indeed to the House.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sitting down at the moment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It might be helpful to the hon. Gentleman if I underline what the hon. Member for Eastbourne has just said. If the hon. Gentleman is on his feet at 7 o'clock, he will put in jeopardy the adjournment of the debate.

Rev. Ian Paisley: It is 6.57, Sir, and I think that I can finish what I have to say before the dread hour. I must tell the House that there was a move by Sinn Fein IRA gunmen, in that council, to remove Queen Elizabeth's name from the parks, and that they were backed unanimously by the SDLP. Every one of them voted in favour, including a justice of the peace. That is what is happening in Northern Ireland and that is what I wanted to say before 7 o'clock. I understand that if I sit down at 7 o'clock I shall be called first next time. [SEVERAL HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then I will sit down, Mr. Speaker.
Debate adjourned. — [Mr. Wakeham.]
Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Orders of the Day — Hampshire (Lyndhurst Bypass) Bill [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. Keith Mans: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson)—

Mr. Speaker: If I may interrupt the hon. Gentleman for one moment, I failed to say that I have not selected the Instruction on the Order Paper, but he may make reference to it in his speech.

Mr. Mans: I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest for raising no objection to this private Bill. I am also delighted that my hon. Friend will be taking part in the debate as his knowledge of the New Forest is much greater than my own. We both welcome the debate in the interests of all concerned, and as a way of bringing a long drawn-out saga of a bypass through the village of Lyndhurst nearer a conclusion.
I hope that my past involvement in the matter over a number of years as a New Forest district councillor will be of assistance to hon. Members in deciding their views. The discussion about a bypass for the village of Lyndhurst is not new. There are references to a bypass being proposed as long ago as 1914. In that year it was suggested as a way of reducing unemployment in the village. The estimated cost was £320, and at least part of the route was similar to the route proposed today. It was estimated that the road would be completed in four weeks and that it would take 27 men to do the task.
Things have changed a lot since then. Indeed, 50 years ago work actually started on a bypass, along a similar route to the one now proposed. The road was mentioned in the Baker report of 1949 which led to the New Forest Act 1949 which gave the verderers, the guardians of the New Forest, their present powers.
Since then, a number of routes have been proposed. There have been two public inquiries and numerous public consultations. However, before explaining those routes, and more specifically the new route proposed by the county council and why it decided to puruse that route by way of a private Bill, I should like to explain why a bypass for the village of Lyndhurst is needed.
Lyndhurst is a small village with a population of below 3,000. However, for many years it has been considered to be the capital of the New Forest, largely because it is a route centre — six roads converge upon Lyndhurst. A bypass is needed because of the traffic going into the New Forest which recently has progressively become a very important recreational area. I understand that last year 11 million people visited the New Forest, and forest traffic has increased each year. At the last census 61,000 vehicles passed in or out of the village during August, and 46,000 vehicles in or out of the village during October. Traffic congestion is enormous. For many summer weekends queues of four miles are not uncommon and the noise is horrifying.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Can the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) tell us whether those who were going in or out of the village were asked whether their destination was Lyndhurst and features within the village such as Bolton's Bench? How many were trying to get through the village? My evidence is that a large amount of the traffic comprised people trying to get to the village, not trying to get through it. Those people would not be using the bypass.

Mr. Mans: My evidence shows that a great many people would be using the bypass, as they wish to pass Lyndhurst and get to the New Forest. It is clear from those figures that almost everyone wants a bypass. My hon. Friend the Member for the New Forest is one of those people. The verderers, the guardians of the New Forest, want a bypass. To my knowledge, no environmental group has publicly come out against the principle of a bypass.
However, it is one thing to agree a principle, it is quite another to find a route. Over the years two routes have been canvassed, at least initially. The outer route has the support of the county council, the New Forest district council, the parish council of Lyndhurst and indeed the residents' association. That is a good route for traffic, but it intrudes into the forest. For that reason the verderers have opposed it. That route was tested by public inquiry in the 1970s. It is not surprising that the verderers should oppose such a route as they have a statutory duty to protect the forest. Although verderers protect the forest, they do not protect the whole environment and there are plenty of beauty spots and open areas outside the statutory duty of the verderers but within the geographical area of the New Forest.
I shall call the other route the village route because it is a relief road and not a proper bypass. That has the support of the verderers because it intrudes on the New Forest to only a small degree. Latterly, it has had the support of other environmental groups. However, the councils have opposed that route as have the people of Lyndhurst. That is not surprising because it cuts off part of the village. It cuts off the village green called Bolton's Bench, the cricket ground and 15 per cent. of the housing of the village from the remainder of the village and passes through a preservation area. Indeed, it will not get rid of much of the noise and air pollution which the villagers already suffer because of the lack of a proper bypass. In addition, it passes through paddock land and areas of ecological importance.
Both routes are equally damaging to the environment, but in different ways. That is why there has been no agreement about which route should be selected, and why in the mid-1980s the county council decided upon a compromise and proposed a new route which this Bill seeks to promote. This route is closer to the village, it keeps the village intact, it does not pass through the preservation area or cut off the village green. It is less intrusive into the New Forest. It is not an ideal route for the villagers of Lyndhurst but they have agreed to it to the extent that more than half the population have signed a petition agreeing to that route. It has the support of the county council, the parish council and the residents' association. Indeed, it has the unanimous support of the Conservative and the Labour groups on the county council. That shows, if nothing else, that this is not a partisan matter and it has the support of different parties locally in Hampshire.
That route and other routes were the subject of a second public inquiry, which was part of the more general inquiry on the forecast endowments village plan. That inquiry said that the village route was not the best, for the reasons I have given. It said that of the two outer routes, the compromise route was just better and that a further variation on the village route should be examined using the same criteria as were used for the village route. That was done by the county council. Unfortunately, the verderers were not prepared to go along with the compromise route.
Planning permission was then obtained for the compromise route. The decision on planning permission was not called in by the Minister, so the planning processes have been exhausted. There is no doubt that the Bill does not intend to bypass those processes; it is in addition to those processes and is necessary because of the special nature of the New Forest.

Mr. Peter Hardy: I am advised that there has been no public inquiry under the town and country planning legislation within a reasonable period. If that is the case, it would seem to qualify the point made by the hon. Gentleman about public consultation.

Mr. Mans: There was a public inquiry into the forest and village towns local plan which started in 1983, because of the importance of the bypass around Lyndhurst. The inquiry was in two parts. The first related to the forest and the second related to the various routes which were considered for the bypass, so the planning procedures have been exhausted.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mans: I have made the point, and I must go on as I have quite a lot to say.
What was the council to do next? Our suggestion was that it should go to the verderers and ask them again whether they would be prepared to go along with the compromise route.
Section 17 of the New Forest Act 1949 relates to unfenced roads. The council took legal advice and was told that the section related only to unfenced roads. That view was supported by Lord Denning in another place, when he made it perfectly clear that the section could not be used by the county council or any other authority to ask permission for a road of the sort necessary to be built, because a bypass around Lyndhurst would have to be fenced in the same way as the roads to which it would join in the north and the south are fenced. The best legal advice was that the council could not proceed in that direction.
It could well be argued that if the council had gone to the verderers and the arbitration procedures had been used, the verderers, even if they gave permission, could have been considered to have been acting outside their authority. If they had done that, the plan may have had to be tested in the courts. Notwithstanding that, it would have been necessary for a private Bill to provide for the road to be fenced.
There are other good reasons for a private Bill. The decision taken on the bypass would be in the public domain and it would be open for all parties — environmental groups, residents' associations and others — to put their point of view. A private arrangement

under section 17 of the New Forest Act between the county council and the verderers would not have allowed for the public consultation which has taken place. We have already had a Select Committee report from the other place, where the various route options have been considered in detail.
The New Forest Act 1949 allows for financial compensation only if land is used for roads. It makes no allowance for compensation for an exchange of land. The verderers have said on many occasions that they would prefer an exchange of land to financial compensation. If the road is built, it will take 10·6 acres of forest land, but the county council has already purchased 18·8 acres to give back to the forest, so if the Bill goes through and the council is allowed to build a road, the New Forest will become bigger, not smaller.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us where the compensation land is and whether he is satisfied that the general public will have access to the compensation land and animals will be able to get to the compensation land as freely as they can to some of the land that will be lost?

Mr. Mans: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying. The compensation land is at Minstead and is in two portions. Part of the land is already owned by the council and the other land will be purchased from the manor of Minstead. The cattle and other animals will have access to that land.
There are other reasons why a private Bill is a good procedure. It will allow people who will have to give up land for compulsory purchase to be dealt with in the same way as owners of forest land are dealt with by the Ministry of Agriculture. It is fair to all land owners, compared with the procedure under the New Forest Act 1949, where the owners of private land would not have had the same rights.
For many reasons it is not surprising that the legal advice given to the county council was to proceed by way of a private Bill, not by way of the New Forest Act. As the matter has come out into the public domain, it has been considered closely. I cannot see how anybody could suggest that the planning procedures are being circumvented, as the issue has been dealt with at great length. The bypass is only 1·7 miles long. There cannot be many other roads of that size that have been the subject of such detailed scrutiny as that road.
Another argument put forward against the Bill is that it would create a precedent. I am not clear what the precedent is. Organisations have been bringing private Bills before the House and the other place for decades, if not centuries. The county council is not a commercial organisation that wants to do something for profit; it is an elected body. Support for the measure runs right across party lines at county and district levels.

Mr. W. Benyon: It worries many of us that the House may create a precedent in laying down the law on the New Forest. My hon. Friend is trying to change the law with a private Bill, which is what we find difficult to take. He has to face this matter carefully. For me, and I believe for many of my hon. Friends, the New Forest is in exactly the same position as a national park, but under different legislation.

Mr. Mans: My hon. Friend is right to say that the New Forest is a very special place. I acknowledge that, as I did


when I was a district councillor. Indeed, the district and county councils have a tremendous record in protecting the forest.
It is significant that very recently the Council for the Protection of Rural England wrote a letter congratulating the county council on the way it was dealing with the roads policy in relation to all the other roads in the forest. That shows that the county council would never have taken this line if it thought that the route would damage the interests of the forest; indeed, quite the reverse.
On the specific point about the private Bill, I do not see how it can be used as a precedent. The county council has made it quite clear that the Bill should not be regarded as a precedent for other interests to promote private Bills, such as commercial interests that might damage the New Forest.

Mr. James Hill: Would I not be correct in saying that there has been a complete impasse on this issue for over 12 years, with the verderers and Hampshire county council unable to agree on any route? Six routes have been proposed. If this particular log jam had been allowed to continue, it was fairly obvious that, after 50 years of discussion, Lyndhurst district council would still not have come to an agreement with the verderers arid Hampshire county council on the route. The only course left for Hampshire county council was to bring forward a private Bill.

Mr. Mans: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention. He is absolutely right. Indeed, I can answer the point about precedent that was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon). I have here a statement by the county council, which says:
If this Bill becomes an Act, it would not be regarded by the County Council as a precedent whereby private legislation was used to construct bypasses elsewhere in the Forest without the consent of the verderers.
This is a very special case. The road is needed, and has been needed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) says, for more than 50 years. I cannot think of another case in the forest that comes anywhere near it. Everybody, including the verderers, understands the need for some sort of relief road.

Mr. Nicholas Baker: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He will know that I and many of my hon. Friends are concerned about over development in the south of England. With the provision of bypasses around towns, especially historic and pleasant ones like Lyndhurst, we have seen that where a bypass goes very wide of a town that is an invitation, if not a demand, that the land between the bypass and the town shall be developed. It is very difficult in practice, however resolute one may be at the beginning, to resist the demand of developers. Can my hon. Friend comment on that?

Mr. Mans: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention, as I had missed out that point. Those of us who know about the forest and downlands village plan will understand how detailed it is. Indeed, only 26 more homes will be built in the four villages within the New Forest — Lyndhurst, Bramshaw, Brockenhurst and Burley — between now and 1997. I have here a letter dated 23 February from the principal planning officer of New Forest district council. He refers to several matters, and in the context of the matter I have just raised, he says:
The idea of any development taking place between the proposed bypass and the village has little credibility.

We are talking about single plots of land, not a development encompassing the area between the proposed bypass route and the existing settlement.

Mr. Tim Boswell: rose—

Mr. Mans: I will give way in a moment.
If one looks closely at the map one sees that there is a far greater chance of more infill if the proposed verderers' route is adopted. In that case, a small amount of land would lie between the relief road and the settlement. This bypass will protect the land, if anything, between the road and the settlement.

Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. He has anticipated what I was about to say. There is a real danger, as I have seen for myself, that there will be infilling if a narrow slit is left, but where a wider sweep is taken there is less chance of infilling over the whole area.

Mr. Mans: Yes. I would add that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) took the trouble to come down and see for himself the problems associated with the village route and the proposed bypass, and how the latter route is better. Indeed, that invitation was open to every hon. Member. The county council is convinced that those who go to see for themselves what is at stake, without exception so far as I know, have all seen the sense of the county route and the problems associated with the verderers' preferred relief road through the village.
The need for a bypass is manifest to everyone. The route proposed in the Bill is designed to minimise damage to the environment while bringing relief from traffic congestion in Lyndhurst, and at the same time keeping the village intact. A private Bill procedure would have been necessary for any route. I emphasise that it does not matter which route is selected, even the route selected by the verderers. Sooner or later, if the principle of a bypass is accepted, private legislation will be needed to achieve it.
The arbitration procedure in section 17 of the New Forest Act could not be used simply because it relates only to unfenced roads. I ask that the Bill should be allowed to proceed to a Select Committee. I ask that those opposing the Bill allow their reasons for so doing to be examined by that Select Committee, as that is the fairest way of proceeding. Indeed, if there is an opportunity between this debate and the first Select Committee sitting, I hope that those in favour of the county council's route will get together with those groups who are worried about the route. I sincerely hope that will happen.
In addition, to allay the fears of some hon. Members, the Select Committee will be able to analyse whether the method chosen by the county council in promoting the Bill is right. The Committee will be able to scrutinise the routes once again, as did the Select Committee in the other place, to assess whether the county council has the answer.
I hope that the verderers and the county council will get together once again during the Select Committee proceedings to look for a further compromise, if that is possible within the terms of the Bill. Hon. Members should be in no doubt that if a bypass, relief road or any other scheme for getting traffic around Lyndhurst is to be built, the House must agree it by the method of a private Bill. Therefore, I urge all hon. Members to allow the measure to go forward to a Select Committee.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson: I have taken careful note of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans). The House will not have failed to notice that the Bill has not been sponsored by an hon. Member representing a Hampshire constituency, and is being brought forward for a Second Reading against the stated advice of the chief executive of the promoting authority with supporting advice of parliamentary agents and counsel. I shall give details of that later.
However persuasive the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre, he does not have the unique responsibility that I have as the Member of Parliament representing the New Forest. Road schemes are, of course, very important to all of us, but the New Forest is unique and has been afforded special protection over many years by public Acts which have enabled us to beat off challenges of many sorts. My hon. Friends the Members for Milton Keynes (Mr. Benyon) and for Dorset, North (Mr. Baker) have already pointed out that developers are currently looking for new territory, and to strip away such protection at this time would be a fatal mistake.
It has been argued that the Bill represents the only way in which the road can be built. I hope to demonstrate that that is complete nonsense and that all the powers that are required exist in the New Forest Act 1949. It is clear from the outset that this is no ordinary works Bill. It raises matters of the most important principle that are relevant to every hon. Member. Those principles are important in deciding not merely where the road should go, but the route that should be taken by those who build it to ensure that, as near as possible, we stick to the agreed procedures that exist.
The origins of the Bill do not lie in success, but in failure. There has been a failure to consult. As Member of Parliament for the area I was never consulted, but merely told that the Bill was to be published. There has been a failure to negotiate and a failure to agree. However, what is more worrying is that the county council has failed to recognise that it has a duty, as the responsible local authority, to protect the New Forest rather than tear that protection away by the Bill.
People from the oil and gas industries are already looking enviously at the forest land. Indeed, in 1983 I had the opportunity to draw the Government's attention to the provisions of the New Forest Act 1877 which prevented Shell International Petroleum from drilling for oil in the Denny Inclosure. There was a public inquiry. I should mention, with great respect to my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary who was not in office at that time, that the Government refused to recognise the validity of that Act. Of course, in the end, they had to, but a strange solution was reached—Shell's application was declared invalid after the inquiry had sat for nearly six months.
The Bill represents a clumsy, ham-fisted, maladroit way in which to attempt to sweep away legislation that benefits us all, especially those who know and love the forest.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre has said that the county council has claimed that there is no alternative way in which the necessary powers can be granted. Shortly, I shall take him through some parts of the 1949 Act with which he may not be familiar. Indeed, should any Select Committee be formed, I doubt whether it would be altogether familiar with those parts of the Act.
I wish to draw attention to the advice that was given to the county council as recently as 25 January at a special meeting of the policy and resources committee held at the castle in Winchester. That committee had been asked, specifically, to look at the future of the Lyndhurst bypass Bill. I shall quote from the minutes of that meeting, which illustrate the views of the chief executive of the county council and others. The chief executive said:
We therefore feel that the Bill has no chance if it is submitted to decision at the present time — a view supported by all the local Members. Withdrawal of the Bill is in our opinion a much preferred alternative to submitting it to the test of debate on Second Reading in the House of Commons, unless the present forlorn prospects of its being passed by the House are altered. This is because withdrawal preserves at least the untarnished record of the Bill in Parliament, which its rejection on Second Reading in the Commons would undermine … We feel that the County Council should preserve untarnished the possible option of early introduction of the Bill if in the next say, two years those procedural doubts could be set at rest and Member support in the House of Commons established.
That was first-class advice from the chief executive. Indeed, that advice was supported by both the parliamentary agents and the parliamentary counsel. Yet here we are today discussing the Bill on Second Reading.

Mr. Robert Key: The debate involves a discussion of the merits of democracy in the decision-making process. Will my hon. Friend confirm that, when that advice was given to the policy and resources committee and the motion was proposed, the motion, on being put to the vote, was lost? The democratically elected councillors rejected that advice.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I would not cavil about that—the vote was 16–11. I was seeking to illustrate the advice given by the chief executive on that occasion rather than what the members felt.
My hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Waterside (Mr. Colvin) is my next door neighbour in our part of Hampshire. On 29 December 1987 he wrote a letter to the Southern Evening Echo:
I have been asked to sponsor the Hampshire Lyndhurst Bypass Bill in the House of Commons by the Hampshire County Council, but have declined to do so for the following reasons.
Firstly I believe that the Private Bill procedure being adopted by the County Council would establish an unwelcome precedent that would endanger the New Forest … I may not be brilliant at picking winners but I do know a loser when I see one, and this Bill is it.
My hon. Friend seized on the point that I wish to establish, which is that the Bill could be of material danger to the New Forest and other parts of the country.
Last month, at the annual meeting of the parish council of Brockenhurst, a nearby village, the chief executive of the New Forest district council — my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre has already said that that council is in favour of the Bill—was asked to comment on the Bill. The Lymington Times of Saturday 6 February 1988, reported:
'We are now pressing on with the Second Reading in the Commons. How far we get remains to be seen,' said Mr. Bassett, saying that if it received insufficient support, the Bill would be talked out by filibustering.
Clearly the chief executive does not realise that filibustering is not a parliamentary term. The report went on:
'We will take it head on' adding that there was always the fall-back of arbitration.


That fall back is set out in clause 17. Therefore, we are to go through the expenditure of ratepayers' money—this unhappy charade today— against the professional advice of those who told the county council what they believe to be the interests of that council and presumably the interests of the ratepayers of the county and the residents of Lyndhurst.

Mr. Mans: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct that there are people who believe that the advice given to the county council is correct. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend would agree that a county council must take the legal advice given to it and then assess it. Although I have the greatest respect for the chief executive of the New Forest district council, the fact is that other, more learned people such as Lord Denning think differently. Other legal information suggests that the course adopted by the county council is the correct one. Lord Denning is just one person who believes that to be the case.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: The noble Lord has been referred to a number of times and I shall come to his remarks later. My hon. Friend is not correct in thinking that the chief executive of an important district council—one of the largest in the country — does not understand the legal niceties of the matter. He ended:
We have got to test ourselves about the future of the New Forest, and how we hand it on to the next generation".
That is precisely the issue we are discussing—whether to allow the New Forest's protective powers to be bulldozed out of the way in Westminster, and to allow the private Bill procedure to he used instead of a public, general Act of Parliament. That lies at the heart of much of the dispute.
The New Forest is central to our discussion. As hon. Members know, it is as old as the Palace of Westminster. It was laid down by William the Conqueror in 1079, and those of us who know the Palace well will recall that Westminster hall was built by William the Conqueror's son, who subsequently met his end in the New Forest when a stray arrow killed him. He was buried at Winchester. The New Forest is the largest area of natural vegetation in lowland Britain and one of the largest in Europe. It is a place of enormous ecological significance, and it is under increasing pressure from the various bodies that I mentioned earlier. At one stage the Army cast its eye lovingly over it. It clearly requires careful management.
I want to establish my credentials for discussing the Bill. I explained at the outset that I represent the New Forest, and I am no stranger to it. My family have lived in and around Lyndhurst for many years; my father is buried in its cemetery. I learnt to ride in Lyndhurst in 1937, which dates me a bit. I know the village well. At one time or another we have lived on three of the four roads that are likely to be linked by the road scheme. I live on one of them now— the Lyndhurst to Beaulieu road. So I have some detailed knowledge of the traffic problems that occur in the village. If hon. Members went to Lyndhurst tomorrow they would find no traffic problem and would wonder what all the fuss is about. However, it is in the summer months when large numbers of visitors come—8 million in 1985—that the problem increases. I want to make it crystal clear that I have never opposed the idea of a bypass for Lyndhurst. Neither, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre pointed out, have the court of verderers or any of the other bodies concerned. The issue is how to go about it.
Lyndhurst is not only a pretty village; it is also the administrative centre of the New Forest. It contains the headquarters of the Forestry Commission, the Verderers hall, where the court does its business, the headquarters of the New Forest district council and the Nature Conservancy Council — a statutory body — and it is where the parish council and the residents operate. It is therefore a village of real local significance.
For simplicity's sake I shall say that the Forestry Commission looks after the trees and the verderers look after the common land, I am describing the management system in shorthand and obviously there are overlapping areas. Hon. Members can see that the administration and management of the forest are thus divided neatly into two separate sections.
The management structure is supported by legislation. The Forestry Commission, being a statutory body, has a great deal of legislation to enable it to carry out its functions. The verderers rely on public Acts of Parliament which have, over the years, given them considerable power and authority. I mentioned the 1877 Act, but the idea of the protection for common land goes back to the 17th century. All the legislation charged the verderers with the responsibility for protecting this unique part of Britain. That unique shield against bricks and concrete has not sprung up without careful consideration. It has been built, brick on brick, to produce the legal basis on which the forest has been able to rely over the years, and on which I hope that it will be able to continue to rely in the future.
It is interesting to note that the private Bill procedure was praised by my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre as being the ideal one to deal with the problem. However, I draw his attention to the evidence given to the Joint Select Committee on Private Bill Procedure, of which I have the honour to be chairman, by my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Aberdare, who is the Lord Chairman of Committees. In his evidence on 2 November 1987, he said about Lyndhurst:
An example is provided by the Hampshire (Lyndhurst Bypass) Bill at present before Parliament. That is a Bill which authorises the making of a bypass around Lyndhurst by the local highway authority.
This is the important point to which I draw the House's attention:
In general, the necessary powers already exist for that purpose
—that contradicts what my hon. Friend said. My right hon. and noble Friend went on to say—this is material to what I shall say later—
but certain aspects of the scheme (fencing the road and the acquisition and exchange of certain land) could not be achieved without specific legislation.
I shall challenge that point in a moment and explain— with the greatest respect—that my right hon. and noble Friend has misunderstood one of the clauses of the 1949 Act. He added:
A Bill was accordingly necessary and the opportunity has been taken to seek authority by Bill for the whole scheme.
It can, of course, be argued that the practice that has developed in this regard is wrong in principle and that in cases of this kind it should only be permissible to seek authority by Bill for what cannot he effected without a Bill, leaving the rest of the scheme to be effected through the ordinary Public General Act procedures.
—that is precisely my point.
To the argument of principle there may be added the point that the effect of the practice can be to allow a small tail to wag a large dog and there may even be a temptation … for a Promoter to search for a tail for this purpose, if he is keen to avoid the Public General Act procedures.


I hope that hon. Members will note those words—they are directly relevant.

Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend accept that, although the noble Lord said that the Select Committee of the House of Lords, in coming to its decision to allow the Bill to go through to Third Reading in another place, took another view and accepted that the county council was correct in bringing the fencing and the road together in one Bill?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. I shall return to that matter in a moment.
At present, there is legislation in place, which should be tested against the requirements of the scheme that the county council is so anxious to pursue. I draw the attention of the House to an important letter that was written by my noble Friend, the Official Verderer, Lord Manners, in The Times on 28 November 1987. He said:
Since 1877 Parliament has been concerned to protect the beauty of the New Forest. The New Forest Act 1949 made provision for roads to be built over the open forest, but only with the consent of the verderers, with a provision that the matter be referred to arbitration in the event of the verderers withholding their consent unreasonably.
The important point is:
If Parliament considers that the protection of the open forest is no longer of importance, then it should declare this as its policy by way of public Act, amending the existing legislation affecting the New Forest, and not let the matter be dealt with on a piecemeal basis by private Acts.
I cannot quarrel with that; it is a first-class statement of the position.

Mr. David Martin: If that happened, it would make matters much worse for places such as national parks and for the New Forest, which is being taken as a national park. By the private Bill method, one has an opportunity to examine each specific proposal in detail rather than give a general right in law. Therefore, surely that gives greater protection to the rights that I understand my hon. Friend wishes to protect.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I would entirely accept what my hon. Friend has said were it not for the fact that—as I hope to show—the powers necessary for the scheme are already available. My hon. Friend makes a valid point, but the powers are already available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wyre mentioned the Select Committee report from the House of Lords after the Select Committee hearing of the Bill. That was not a complete departure from normal practice, but it showed that the other place considered that the Bill warranted serious consideration. I have looked at that report, but it is sadly deficient in a number of matters. It talks about—this point has been made on a number of occasions—one of the paragraphs in "Erskine May", which, as hon. Members will know, is a good guide to parliamentary procedure. Paragraph 22 says that the Committee noted "however, that Erskine May states at page 907 that 'No rule has been established which precludes the promoters of a private bill from seeking the repeal or amendment of public Acts.'"
That is quite true and absolutely right. That is the point that my noble Friend, Lord Manners, made in his letter to The Times.
Were we being asked to consider amendment or repeal of the 1944 Act, Parliament would be in a position to

express a view; but it is not being so asked. If hon. Members look at the Bill to see how many times the Act is mentioned, they will discover that it is mentioned only once in order to point out a relevant clause, which says:
'the New Forest' means lands within the Forest as defined…under section 12 of the New Forest Act 1949.
This is not a Bill to amend or repeal the New Forest Act 1949. It is a Bill to get round, to circumvent, to push to one side and to carry on as if the 1949 Act did not exist.
I explained earlier that verderers are part of a delicately balanced management structure. They are a democratically elected body, the powers of which are enshrined in public Acts. They are responsible for common rights and their powers have been amended over the years. The 1877 Act was particularly important in that regard.

Mr. Hill: My hon. Friend obviously has great local knowledge. Will he describe how those democratic verderers are elected, for what period of time, how many of them there are, what qualifications they must have and where their end responsibility lies?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: There are five elected verderers and four appointed verderers. They are appointed, in one case, by the Ministry of Agriculture, and that will become significant later in my remarks. They are elected by those who hold common rights. Common rights in the forest go with the land. The commoner—the person whom they are protecting—is responsible for their election. It is a fair and reasonable method of election.
My right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has often talked of the problems of the small farmer. I do not want to discuss the considerable problems of the commoner, but I should tell hon. Members that the verderers are elected by those whom they must serve and protect. That is why it is so important that we leave them with the necessary power to carry out that protection.

Mr. Key: I have already mentioned the matter of democracy. Is it not the case that the verderers, split 50–50 between appointees and those who are elected, will always come down in favour of the non-elected because of the casting vote of the chairman? That is precisely how they were defined and described during the debates on the 1949 Act. Furthermore, will my hon. Friend agree that there is now only one family who, technically, are commoners and that all the beasts in the New Forest, apart from 10 who graze under commoners' rights, are grazing under licence and do not belong to those who, technically, have the 1 acre of land necessary to make them a commoner, which gives them the right to vote for the verderers?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I do not want to upset my hon. Friend, but I must tell him that I am a commoner and that I have run animals on the forest. I know of many people who are far without the description that my hon. Friend has given. Commoning is still a lively way in which some individuals with small farming interests continue to live. It is not becoming any easier, but commoning is not, as my hon. Friend tried to suggest, some sort of business enterprise done on licence. If he were to visit the forest I should he only too happy to introduce him to some commoners. He would then have an opportunity to discuss the matter with them.

Mr. Key: I live only 300 yd from the forest.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: Perhaps my hon. Friend will be kind enough to ask me to visit his house.
I want to consider how the 1949 Act came into being. It has already been referred to in great detail and it is the cornerstone of the protection that the forest enjoys. As the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) knows, the Act flows from the decision of the post-war Labour Government of 1946 to set up a committee of inquiry under Mr. Baker to look, with others, at the conditions of the New Forest and,
having due regard to the existing rights and interests, to recommend such measures as are necessary for adjusting to modern requirements.
I do not often pay lavish tribute to the Labour party, but on that occasion it was right. That body reported in 1947 and its report has become known in shorthand as the Baker report. It went into great detail about the problems that would he likely to face the forest in the post-war years and ensured that the verderers' powers were modernised and brought up to date. The court was reconstituted as I described and the Official Verderer, the chairman of the court, is appointed by Her Majesty — by the Government of the day—and is the person ultimately responsible to the Crown.
The court sits in open session every other month and allows any member of the community, be he commoner or otherwise, to make presentments that can be listened to and acted upon. That open court, which I regard as very democratic, is of great importance and significance to the area. The Lord Chancellor can indicate four members of the court to sit on an extension of the court—the court of Swainmote— which is a disciplinary court that has powers with which I shall not worry the House.
The 1949 Act, which sprang out of the Baker report of 1947, is very specific, as is all legislation governing the New Forest, including, as I said, the 1877 Act. Let me draw the attention of the House to the two sections central to our debate. Section 17 has been referred to. I note from the Order Paper that my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre has tabled an Instruction to the Committee to pay particular regard to the 1949 Act. I am only sorry that it has been such a long time coming. Why was an Instruction not tabled on Second Reading in another place? The 1949 Act had not been mentioned before; it had been brushed aside as being of no significance. The Instruction has been put here to keep this stuttering flame alive. If one is prepared to table an Instruction to the Committee to look at the 1949 Act, one might as well use the arbitration procedures under that Act.

Mr. Mans: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Instruction was rejected because it was felt to be superfluous as it was already in the instructions of the Select Committee of both Houses to look at this point?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I thank my hon. Friend.
Section 17 is lengthy, and I shall not read the whole of it to the House, but a number of its provisions are material to our debate. Subsection (1) says:
Where a highway authority, other than the Secretary of State for Transport, require any land in the Forest for the purposes of any of their functions as a highway authority, they may apply to the verderers for their agreement to the transfer of the land to the highway authority.
The clause then describes that process. Clause 17(8) says:
The verderers shall not unreasonably withhold their agreement on any application under this section by a highway authority and if any dispute arises as to whether their agreement has been unreasonably withheld the matter shall be referred to a single arbitrator agreed between the verderers and the authority or, failing agreement, appointed by the

President of the Royal institution of Chartered Surveyors on an application made either by the verderers or by the authority after giving notice in writing to the other of them.
Here we have a clear-cut arbitration machinery already established in a public Act. Why have we not used it? We have heard something of the promoters' case tonight. Apparently, they feel that the Act does not cover all the requirements. I shall come to fencing and the exchange of land in a moment. What the promoters hear is the word "reasonableness". If my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre is correct that the route being promoted by the county council is environmentally superior to that proposed by the verderers' court, why are the promoters not prepared to test that reasonableness? Do the promoters believe that because of the verderers' special responsibilities they would not win at arbitration, even though, as I pointed out, the chief executive to the New Forest district council suggested that
there was always the fallback of arbitration"?
The machinery is there. It should have been used.

Mr. Mans: I fully agree with my hon. Friend that this goes to the heart of the matter. It really comes down to what one means by "reasonable". Does my hon. Friend not agree that the verderers are responsible for the forest and the forest alone and therefore cannot possibly be considered to be acting unreasonably if they are trying to protect the forest and not the whole environment? Does he agree that the routes are environmentally equally good and, if anything, the inner route may be slightly better? However, the fact remains that the verderers are not responsible for the environment along which the inner—the village—route would go.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: I understand what my hon. Friend says. He now questions what it would be considered reasonable for the verderers to concede. He will, of course, know that the building of the A31 across the north of the forest used a vast amount of forest land and yet the verderers did riot withhold their permission. They were reasonable. I assure my hon. Friend that my noble Friend the Official Verderer is a reasonable man, as are the other members of his court. Therefore, why will the county council not allow the matter to be tested under what my hon. Friend acknowledges is arbitration machinery?
My hon. Friend questioned whether other powers were available under the 1949 Act to cover fencing and land exchange. Much has been said about that. We have been told repeatedly that without a private Bill fencing and land exchange cannot he completed. I believe that that is complete fiction.

Mr. Benyon: Am I not right in thinking that Hampshire county council has a representative on the court of verderers and is it not a fact that he opposes this way of proceeding?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: He does, indeed. As my hon. Friend pointed out, the elected member of Hampshire county council appointed to the court of verderers was kept away from the meeting to which hon. Members were invited to be shown the route. Hon. Members were only allowed to hear one point of view, and the Hampshire county council representative who was a verderer was prevented from attending. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] It is absolutely true.
I shall return to the Select Committee report, published after the Committee stage in the other place. Some hon.


Members may not be familiar with that report. Under the heading "Exchange of Land" in paragraphs 24 and 25, it says:
Under the provisions of the Bill the Promoters will transfer lands to the Verderers in exchange for the land taken from the open forest for the construction of a bypass.
The report discusses the criticism of the quality of the land and so on. What it does not do is to make any mention or take any note of section 19 of the New Forest Act 1949. We have heard much about section 17, but section 19 has never caught the public imagination. I shall bring it out of hiding so that hon. Members can see for themselves that it contains precisely the power that we are told can be provided only by private Act of Parliament.
Section 19 is headed,
Exchanges of land in the Forest.
and states:
The Minister may with the agreement of the verderers direct that any unenclosed land in the Forest which is vested in the Minister shall be held by him on behalf of the Crown in severalty and free from all rights of the commoners, and that in exchange for that land any land invested in the Minister and surrounded by or abutting on the Forest, but not forming part thereof, shall become part of the Forest and subject to the like rights of common.
Therefore, one can extinguish those rights, change the land and give it to somebody else. My noble Friend, the Official Verderer, wrote to me on 15 February this year referring specifically to section 19, stating:
Once the Minister has acquired land, receiving land in exchange, he can transfer it to the highway authority who would then be entitled to fence it.
There is the provision of land exchange and fencing. He went on to state:
As the County Council are offering exchange land I can see no difficulty.

Mr. Key: rose—

Mr. McNair-Wilson: My hon. Friend seems unhappy, so before he intervenes, let me say that the Official Verderer also stated:
Incidentally the provisions of Section 19 are used fairly extensively when Forest land is required for various purposes.
Therefore, that route is already well trodden. However, if one reads the Select Committee report, one will not find a mention anywhere of section 19.

Mr. Boswell: Will my hon. Friend tell the House whether the arbitration procedures that are applied in section 17 and bear on matters of fencing are also available in the event of a dispute between a potential or an actual highway authority and the verderers in respect of section 19 and the exchange of lands to which he has just referred?

Mr. McNair-Wilson: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but section 17 deals with all land that would be affected by a plan by a highway authority to build a road, other than the Minister of Transport, who has special powers. Therefore, in this case, the two are separate issues.

Mr. Key: My hon. Friend anticipated that I would rise on this point. I apologise for interrupting him yet again, but my constituency is contiguous with my hon. Friend's. The question of fencing is crucial because, as my hon. Friend will agree, a large and growing number of animals are killed on the roads each year in that area. The matter of fencing is not in dispute in relation to enclosed land.

However, we must be absolutely clear on the question of fencing because it seems to me that section 17 is not accurate when it comes to the fencing of roads. Indeed, in the Second Reading debate of the New Forest Bill on 18 October 1949, the then Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, a certain Mr. George Brown, stated:
Clause 17 relates to other public roads in the Forest for which the highway authority is not the Ministry but the Southampton County Council. They may need to be improved or widened from time to time, although the intention is, as I have said, that the main flow of through traffic should use the trunk road. This Clause contains no provision for fencing. —[Official Report, 18 October 1949; Vol. 468, c. 497.]

Mr. McNair-Wilson: That is quite true—section 17 does not contain such provisions and I never suggested that it did. All that I am saying is that, when the land is exchanged and no longer has upon it common rights, it is without the responsibility of the verderers and can be fenced by the body which then has it in its possession.

Mr. Mans: On the point of specific exchange of land, I think that my hon. Friend will agree that section 17 is a specific section dealing with land exchange for roads. Section 19, to which he has referred, is a general section. It is a well-known legal precedent that one cannot override a specific section which does not mention a specific thing by a general section of an Act that does so. Therefore, despite the fact that section 19 mentions exchange of land, it cannot be used in the case of section 17.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: It is, of course, a question of the test of the reasonableness of the case. I have made that clear; inevitably, that is what it is about. In fact, arbitration machinery exists to test whether the case is reasonable. It is that test to which I very much hope that the county council will eventually agree.
I do not want to go on too much about the Select Committee report from the other place, save to draw the House's attention to its last paragraph, on page 9, section 47, which states:
The Committee conclude by drawing attention to the fact that in allowing the Bill to proceed, they have done so in the knowledge that the County Council, in promoting a private bill, have adopted an unusual procedure for the construction of a highway and one which avoids the veto of the Verderers which Parliament in 1949 regarded as an important safeguard for the New Forest.
I repeat that the Select Committee said that it was "an unusual procedure".
I want to deal briefly with whether this is the best procedure, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre suggested. Much reference has been made by him and by others in the past to wanting the Bill to be referred to a Select Committee, as if some mysterious coven of Members of Parliament would be able to make sense of nonsense. That is totally far-fetched. I call in aid the evidence given to the Joint Select Committee on Private Bill Procedure, to which I have already referred, by the Parliamentary Bar in evidence dated 23 April 1987 which states in general about Committee procedure:
The procedures under which the private bill committees operates are in some respects old fashioned, ill defined and unsophisticated. There is abundant scope for reforms".
We are not dealing with some carefully honed body of people who can bring a sensitive eye to these problems because, as hon. Members who know Standing Orders will


appreciate, one can serve on one of those Select Committees only if one does not have an interest in the matter that is being discussed.
Indeed, the evidence goes further. Section (ii) states:
It has become apparent in recent years that Members of the House of Commons find it increasingly difficult to take part continuously in the quasi-judicial work of the Committees; and thus there is a widening gulf in the quality of the decision making process between the two Houses.
Those who now suggest that the Bill—[Interruption.] This is serious criticism. The Bill is now to be committed to such a Committee. I shall question in a moment whether that is the best body to consider a matter that is so important to this part of England.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the promoters, and those who are petitioning against, have been looking at fitting in the time for such Committee proceedings? There is some discussion that three weeks might be needed in Committee. How many hon. Members now present in the Chamber could cross out of their diary at least three days a week for three weeks to sit in Committee to listen to the arguments? It is a major imposition on hon. Members if they are expected to find that sort of time.

Mr. McNair-Wilson: The hon. Gentleman makes an important and valid point. A similar point was raised during the discussions on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill. Indeed, when the Select Committee was constituted, at least one hon. Member, who was not aware of the length of the proceedings, had to absent herself from the Committee. When that happened, the Committee was without a quorum and therefore had to cease its proceedings. Corridors in this building were full of silks, counsel, petitioners and people who had travelled a long way, wasting money, but who were unable to get the satisfaction which my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre seems to feel can be derived only through the private Bill procedure. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The Committee on Private Bill procedure is concerned about being able to keep those quasi-judicial bodies in being because of the inconvenience, the cost and the time involved if they are without a quorum. It is an important matter. They are like a jury in a court. However, the difference between a jury in a court and a Select Committee is that the jury has the benefit of guidance from the judge, whereas the Select Committee, with the greatest respect to all those who chair them, may not have the same expert knowledge of some of the controversial matters being discussed.
I referred earlier to remarks in the public evidence given by Lord Aberdare. In conclusion he said:
Indeed, where works are at all extensive or controversial I can see force in the argument that Parliament is not the most suitable forum for determining whether they should be carried out. If, therefore, there is one area more than another in the Private Bill field where an alternative to Private Bill procedure could usually be explored it seems to me to be that covered by works provisions.
He is absolutely right.
The idea that somehow here in Parliament we shall satisfactorily resolve the problems of Lyndhurst's roads is fanciful. With great respect to all hon. Members, they cannot have the detailed knowledge that is necessary. In the end, the only way in which the matter will be resolved is by a joint committee of the verderers court and the highway authority. That is the way that we have to proceed if we want to protect the New Forest. Those who

do not want to do that can come here and bring in amending legislation, but they should not attempt to get round the existing Act in the way that the Bill attempts to do.
None of us can tell what will happen to the Bill, but we must ask ourselves — what of the future? One must recognise that, as the chief executive of the county council pointed out in the advice to which I referred earlier, if it is possible to overcome the procedural problems that lie at the heart of our debate, it will be far better than being saddled with this type of Act which may in time lead lo the establishment of a dangerous precedent.
I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre said about the assurances given by the Hampshire county council about road building. But he did not read out a letter from the chairman of Shell, Esso, Clyde Petroleum or British Gas. The chief executive of Hampshire county council cannot tie his successors hand and foot by any assurance. Therefore, one must treat that with the reservation that is expected.
We know that Lyndhurst has a road problem. We know that the bodies concerned have no objection to the bypass. We also know that, even if the Bill were to go through all its stages as quickly as possible, the bypass would not be built this year, next year or the year after. The works described in the Bill are for the 1990s programme of Hampshire county council. What will happen to the villagers of Lyndhurst this summer?
The Hampshire county council has an important statutory responsibility as a highway authority to look seriously at the alternative signposting of the routes that avoid Lyndhurst, and there are plenty. I know them, because I drive on them. I spend my working life at weekends travelling on those roads. I have a home on the Lyndhurst-Beaulieu road and a constituency office at Cadnam. It could be said that one has to go through Lyndhurst to get there, but I do not. Four roads lead to Beaulieu, Brockenhurst and Lymington but they are not signposted as alternatives. Therefore, I appeal to Hampshire county council to produce sensible alternative signposting. The Totton west bypass, which my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) knows so well, is almost complete and has already altered the area's traffic flow, relieving much of the pressure.
I object to the Bill, but I would be happy to act as an honest broker to bring the various bodies together. If it is impossible for the court of verderers and the highway authority to sit down together, I shall be happy to find some way of bringing them together and help in the establishment of what I hope will be much better relations. Indeed, my noble Friend Lord Manners has already begun that job himself.
Therefore, I give this admonition to the court of verderers. Whatever happens to the Bill tonight is not the end of the story. Lyndhurst still has problems which must be resolved, but they need to be resolved in their interests while recognising the importance of the forest.
Recently, the Forestry Commission established the important New Forest review body, whose report has been published. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have had letters about model aeroplane flying on Beaulieu aerodrome, so some are already aware that such a body exists. That review body included representatives of the Forestry Commission, Hampshire county council, the Countryside Commission, the New Forest district council, verderers, the Nature Conservancy Council, and so on.
The review body said in the concluding recommendations of its report published on 6 October 1987:
During the course of the Review we have come increasingly to realise that more than ever before the authorities responsible in their various ways for the New Forest, the authorities indeed who we represent, are the trustees for the nation.
That is the spirit in which we should go forward.
I have had many letters from local authorities complaining about the Department of the Environment inspectors overriding local planning decisions and allowing development where the planning authority has objected. The county council is at the moment preparing a great case against the establishment of a coal-fired power station at the mouth of Southampton water, Fawley B, and the establishment of a coal importing terminal. However, we shall not go into that. More ratepayers' money is to be spent on all that. I do not object, but surely it is bewildering, confused and confusing thinking for the county council to act in one way about the power station while in the same breath stripping away the protection from the New Forest. The county council must have a clear strategy on its desire to protect the environment.
There is no problem here that cannot be resolved. If we work together we can genuinely recognise the changes that are necessary— as was hinted at in the Baker report in 1947—to take account of the requirements of a modern and different world. Provided we work together, we can make those changes our friends and allies rather than what we have here—a hostile and unwelcome intruder. I do not like the Bill.

Mr. Robin Cook: In defending the New Forest, about which the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) spoke with such feeling, he made a powerful case based on his deep personal knowledge of the New Forest and the area surrounding Lyndhurst. I cannot pretend to have anything like his knowledge of the area or his qualifications for intervening in the debate, but, as he knows, I am a regular visitor to the New Forest and I have spent summer or Easter in each of the last eight years in the northern part of the forest.
I owe a deeply personal debt to the New Forest because I have spent periods of great happiness and peace there. Anyone who is caught on the heath in the rain knows that it can be a rugged and bleak place, but those changing moods and scenery make the forest a living thing and give it its fascination. Nowhere else in lowland Britain can one find such an extensive tract of public land and, perhaps with the exception of Dartmoor, nowhere else does one find such an extensive tract where there is open access. It is one of the last places left to us where we can walk at will across a natural landscape. The sense of wonder that it inspires is due to the fact that it has remained largely unchanged. One can walk across a landscape that has remained since mediaeval times and still shares the same type of livestock and wildlife that roamed there in those times.
The New Forest is one of the treasures of Britain. It is every bit as much our heritage as the mediaeval cathedral in the constituency of the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), through which he would not dream of driving even a modest two-track bypass.
I concede that I do not live in the New Forest and I must qualify my right to express a view. I neither reside nor work in the forest, and I can fully understand the impatience of those who live in the forest, particularly the residents of Lyndhurst who support the bypass, about the fact that the decision on the bypass should be taken by people who neither live nor work in their village.

Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman has got quite the wrong impression about what I am trying to say. No doubt he travels to the New Forest several times a year with his family and perhaps a caravan. However, he should be talking on behalf of the visitors who wish to go to the forest, to caravan parks and car parks, and then walk into the forest to see all its beauty.

Mr. Cook: I travel to the New Forest by car and I will comment on the traffic congestion in Lyndhurst, which I have seen as I have driven through the town.
I wish to make a couple of points in defence of my right, as a visitor, to intervene in the debate. First, I do not seek to become involved in the decision. It was the decision of the county council to submit the matter to Parliament and to resolve the matter by private Bill. If the county council takes the view that this is the proper way of proceeding, it can hardly object to Members of Parliament exercising their judgment on the matter over which they are asked to preside.
Secondly, those people who visit the forest are not entitled to have the same weight attached to their views as those who reside there. Nevertheless, our views are entitled to some weight. After all, there are 8 million of us, which is a population equivalent to that of Greater London. Moreover, we make an important contribution to the economy of the forest. Lyndhurst shows some ambivalence towards us. That is revealed in the comments on local plans, where Lyndhurst is described as the capital of the forest, and its tourist centre. That is a fair description of Lyndhurst. It has nine tea rooms and restaurants in the main street alone and it is studded with and ringed by hotels.
There is a certain tension between the promotion of Lyndhurst as a tourist centre and the description of Lyndhurst as the capital of the forest and a tourist centre. It becomes even worse if that traffic problem is resolved at the expense of the very forest which attracts tourists to Lyndhurst in the first place.
I wish to refer to a comment made by Lord Montagu of Beaulieu in the other place, when this matter was debated. He described the ground over which the bypass will travel as unexceptional forest scrub, yet he makes a tidy sum out of the tourist industry there and out of that unexceptional forest scrub. In purely commercial terms, it would be wise for him to place a higher value on that scrub.
As someone who is not a local Member of Parliament or resident, I do not apologise for expressing a view on this Bill. I do not criticise the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) for promoting this Bill, although he represents a constituency in Lancashire, as I am well aware of his strong local connections. The hon. Gentleman is not present at the moment, but I was surprised and sorry to see, in the Blackpool Gazette of 10 February, that the hon. Gentleman was quoted as saying:
the main reason for supporting the bill was to learn the parliamentary ropes in preparing to press the case for the Fylde Coast Easterly Bypass.


I have no objection to the Fylde coast easterly bypass. It may be a perfectly acceptable proposal—I see that the hon. Gentleman has returned to the Chamber—but the New Forest deserves something better than being used as a dummy run for a bypass at the far end of England. If that comment is accurate, it casts a rather jaundiced light on the hon. Gentleman's comment that he does not regard the bypass as any sort of precedent, when plainly he does.

Mr. Mans: I was trying to explain that, as a new Member of the House, this would be a good opportunity to learn a little more about roads in general. The hon. Gentleman no doubt realises that one should not believe all that one reads in the newspapers.

Mr. Cook: I am happy that the hon. Gentleman has placed that correction on the record. All hon. Members are welcome to learn the ropes as best they can. Regrettably, I require no more learning processes on how to oppose business, as I have been doing that for the past eight years and will continue to do so for another three years. I oppose the Bill because I do not like it, not because of a learning curve.
In considering the Bill, we must address three questions. First, is a bypass necessary? Secondly, does it have to be this bypass? Thirdly, is this the correct procedure by which to obtain authority for it? The first point need not detain us long. I have sat in a stationary car, marooned in a tail-back, five miles outside Lyndhurst, often enough to appreciate the case for road works there. The case has changed over the years. Originally, the case was for a bypass for east-west traffic, which was removed by the M27 and the A31. The case is now transferred to the need for a north-south bypass. Over the years, some of the pressure may again be changed by the creation of the Totton bypass.
It is also possible to question the figures quoted by the hon. Member for Wyre when he presented the case. In its survey, the council discovered that 80 per cent. of the traffic approaching Lyndhurst was through traffic, but that 80 per cent. was defined by asking them their starting point and their destination, thus elminating those who were stopping in Lyndhurst for a meal, to purchase a postcard, or to visit the verderers court. Many of those 80 per cent. would wish to stop for that purpose and would not wish to be carried around the town by a bypass. Presumably, that is also the reason why some traders oppose the bypass. It would discourage people passing through the town from stopping and making their contribution to the local economy.
Nevertheless, I accept that there is a case for a bypass, but that does not oblige us to accept this bypass. There are alternatives. The county council's presentation to hon. Members freely admitted that seven different routes have been examined over the past 10 years. Those seven routes fall broadly into two categories—the outer routes and the inner routes. In the outer routes, the southern section swings out into the forest over the passage between the Southampton road and the Beaulieu road. The hon. Member for Wyre described that proposal as a compromise, with the outer route originally proposed as route No. 1.
Route No. 2 differs from route No. 1 in the northern section. It does not differ at all from route No. 1 in the southern section where it goes out into the forest to precisely the same extent as the original route. In that section, there is no compromise.

Mr. Mans: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the only reason it does not differ from the original route is that it is so close to the settlement pattern of Lyndhurst in the first place?

Mr. Cook: I shall come to the gap which will remain between it and the settlement pattern of Lyndhurst in a moment. In the meantime I point out to the hon. Gentleman that there are 85 acres between it and the settlement of Lyndhurst. If he says that those 85 acres bring the road so close to the settlement pattern of Lyndhurst, I am afraid that he will underline the fear of many petitioners. If we enclose the 85 acres which are considered as being so close to the settlement pattern of Lyndhurst, those 85 acres may become settled upon.
The other five routes are all variants of the inner route which travels to the west of Bolton's Bench. They go through the gap between the historic village and the modern suburb of Queen's Crescent. In his opening address, the hon. Member for Wyre attempted to pray in aid the report of the local inquiry into the forest and downlands villages local plan. What the inspector said in his report was:
This sector of routes 1 and 5A"—
that is, the southern sector to which I have just referred—
in summary involves a fragmentation of open forest which should be avoided if a cost-effective route having an acceptable impact on the built up area can be devised on the west of Bolton's Bench.
It is plain that, having considered all the different routes available to it at the time and having considered the debate on the outer and inner routes, the preference of the inspector was for an inner route. It is not possible for the promoters of the Bill to pray in aid the outcome of that planning inquiry, the only planning inquiry at which the route was ever presented.
It is hardly surprising that those who identify their interests with the forest want to see as little intrusion as possible into the forest. Nor is it surprising that those who identify their interest with the village wish to shove the bypass as far out of the forest as they can get away with. The weight of representations against the outer route from those who are concerned with the forest is impressive.
That opposition falls into three categories. First, there are those who are concerned with the management of the forest. It is interesting that every body charged with the management of the forest is opposed to this route. It includes the verderers, the commoners and the New Forest Association. It also includes the Forestry Commission which, as a public body, has not felt it right to petition against the Bill and did not do so in the other place
However, when the matter was debated on Second Reading, the then Minister stated fairly the objections of the Forestry Commission to the route. I hope that when the Minister intervenes in the debate he will repeat to this House the same objections of the Forestry Commission on the grounds of noise and intrusion which such a route would bring to the forest. Those of us who are not locals can take heart from the fact that there is strong local opposition to the proposal.
The second category of those who object covers the statutory bodies which are there to advise the Government on the environment. There are two, the Countryside Commission, which advises the Government on recreational and leisure use of the countryside, and the Nature Conservancy Council, which advises the Government on


the scientific importance of the environment and threat to the environment. Both bodies are appointed by the Government to advise the Government and Parliament on how we should treat proposals for the countryside. This is the first time that those two bodies have petitioned against a private Bill. The fact that they have chosen this Bill to make their own precedent of petitioning against a private Bill demonstrates their strength of feeling and their concern about the unique character of the New Forest.
The last category of those opposed to the Bill is composed of the voluntary bodies whom one might describe as representing the consumer interest, the people who use and appreciate the countryside, the Council for the Protection of Rural England, the Ramblers Association and the Open Spaces Society. It is, in short, striking that the Bill has united against it the whole countryside lobby. One need not look far for the reason why it has achieved that unanimity of view among groups concerned with the countryside and the environment. It is because of the special character of the New Forest.
Here I want to return to the description by Lord Montagu of this tract of land as unexceptional forest scrub. I take his point openly. The stretch of land is no more and no less unexceptional than much of the rest of the New Forest. The strength of the New Forest and its unique character is precisely because it is an extensive tract of heath, very much similar throughout its area. I should like to quote to the House the evidence submitted by the Nature Conservancy Council in another place. This is the only lengthy quotation which I propose to read to the House; I hope the House will bear with me.
The Nature Conservancy Council brought out the importance of the extensive nature of the heath very well:
It is the scale and totality of The Forest which is so important, rather than the value which may be placed on individual localities within it. We do not know the precise requirements, e.g. of most insects, which inhabit The Forest, but the evidence strongly suggests that The Forest's rich insect fauna is associated with its scale, continuity and diversity. To dismember it or fragment it, in however limited a fashion, is to diminish its total value to science and to people.

Mr. Key: Does not the hon. Member agree that the weakness of the petition of the Nature Conservancy Council to the House is that alone among the petitioners it makes no acknowledgement, unlike himself, of the need for a bypass? It takes no notice of the views of local people and it does not even mention the problem.

Mr. Cook: The Nature Conservancy Council very properly confined itself to those matters for which it has statutory responsibility, which is to advise on the scientific importance of the site and the threat to the environment of a proposal.

Mr. Key: What about the Countryside Commission?

Mr. Cook: The Countryside Commission has a wider remit. Its remit is to advise on the use of the countryside by people. That naturally involves it in commenting on traffic movements as well. I invite the hon. Gentleman to read not simply the petition submitted to the House by the Nature Conservancy Council but the full text of its evidence in the other place. He will find that it conceded that there was a demand for a bypass at Lyndhurst, although it did not take a view on whether there was a need for a bypass.
The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue. I think it is also fair to say that the Nature Conservancy Council, as with the other petitioners, has made it clear that it would not petition against an inner route. I shall return to that point later. It is interesting that the promoters submit to the House a route which has united all the countryside interests, all of whom have said clearly that they would not oppose an inner route, were it chosen.

Mr. Hill: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have left a bare hour and 12 minutes. I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) will take a few minutes. Will it be possible for local Members to participate in the debate? The debate seems to be widening to include every hon. Member.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for drawing attention to the fact that time is getting short. Many hon. Members still wish to speak.

Mr. Cook: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall try to restrain myself from giving way again.
My concern is not merely with the 10 acres which are to be tarmacked for the road but with the 85 acres which are to be enclosed between the bypass and the town. There is an odd dichotomy in the representations of the supporters of the Bill. When the road swings out into the forest it is represented as a simple, two-track road which is not intrusive and will not fragment the forest. Indeed, the county surveyor in his evidence in the other place said:
People will barely notice the bypass as they walk over it.
Yet when an identical road of identical dimensions is shifted to the inner route, we suddenly discover that it will split the village and will deny access from residents on one side over this immense barrier to the recreational facilities at Bolton's Bench.
The supporters of the route cannot have it both ways. If a road of such dimensions would split the village as an inner route, it will undeniably fragment the forest if it is an outer route. I have considerable sympathy with the petitioners' fears that, over a period, the 85 acres that will effectively be enclosed by the outer route would cease to have the character of open heath, and would become an urban park.
There are two considerations. The first is that the animals are likely to graze less frequently on the inside of the bypass, because their only access to that tract of land will be by a single underpass. The commoners maintain that the animals are unlikely to use the underpass to the same extent as they would wander over an open heath. That is why the commoners oppose the Bill. If the animals do not graze those 85 acres, there will be a substantial effect on the vegetation and plant life of that tract.
However, there is a more important reason for anxiety about the future of those 85 acres. If they were enclosed by the bypass, they would become regarded as part of the village and its amenities, rather than as a continuous tract of open forest with a division formed by a busy road fenced along its length with only two crossing points.
I find the attitude of the promoters to Bolton's Bench constructive. They object to the inner route on the grounds that it would be visually intrusive from Bolton's Bench. It is undeniable that all inner routes would be in proximity to Bolton's Bench; equally, however, all inner routes would be on the town side of Bolton's Bench.
Civic pride is a great thing, but I find it a curious assumption that all the townspeople who climb Bolton's


Bench, and, more particularly, all the visitors, do so to look back at Lyndhurst. The most obvious thing that they will see, in the immediate future, will be the fire station.
Some people who go up Bolton's Bench, particularly visitors, go not to see Lyndhurst and the fire station, but to look out on the forest. An outer route, if constructed along the lines suggested in the Bill, would be clearly visible. Across this section, half a mile of it will be an embankment, and one of the two crossings which are to be supplied will be an overhead bridge.
It is plain that, psychologically, the villagers regard Bolton's Bench as part of their village, rather than as part of the forest. My anxiety is that, if the outer route is chosen, all those 85 acres will come to be regarded as part of the purlieu of the village rather than the forest, and there will be pressure to prettify and develop it.
If the proposed route is objectionable, are the alternatives feasible? Certainly, an inner route is feasible, although I am not suggesting that it is necessarily ideal: it is difficult to find a proposed new road to which there are no objections. The promoters do not attempt to deny that, which is hardly surprising, as their own county bypass panel in 1983 concluded that the inner route would be more cost-effective and better value for money. This is what the panel said about the route that we are considering in the Bill:
The panel here therefore looked at the possible alternate route put forward by the local members. It does however suffer from the same traffic and economic disadvantage as route 1" —
the original outer route—
and is unlikely to be good value for money.
The reason that the panel concluded that an inner route would be better value for money is that it would be much shorter. The outer route is not only longer than the inner route, but much longer than the present route through the town, which would continue to be used by much through traffic unless measures were taken to close the high street. That would be inconvenient to residents and probably unpopular with traders.
The objections to the inner route, as advanced by the promoters, effectively come down to the view that the inner route is not acceptable to residents of Lyndhurst. Let me refer to the report of the Select Committee in the other place, which concluded:
If route 5A is not proceeded with"—
that is the route in the Bill—
it is likely that the opposition of the residents of Lyndhurst to a route such as 6A as an inner route would mean that Lyndhurst would have no bypass for the foreseeable future.
With the greatest respect to the noble Lords, I am bound to say that there is a strong element of tautology in that statement. If the residents of Lyndhurst want a bypass, they can have an inner route. Such a Bill would pass through the House almost on the nod, without any petitioners objecting. If they choose not to accept an inner route, they have a perfect right to do so: the choice is theirs. It is wholly unreasonable, however, for the promoters to produce local opposition to the inner route as though it were an obstacle to progress which those of us who oppose the outer route had somehow dreamt up.
The third consideration is whether this is the correct way to seek authority for the construction of the road. Is it a prudent use of county council funds? I understand that the total cost of promoting this private Bill will be some £300,000, which, if we put it into perspective, is three times the entire footpaths budget of Hampshire county council.
The promoters have said that it is necessary to have a private Bill because it is necessary to secure permission to fence the road. There is a reference in clause 4(2) to fencing the road. The remaining 24 clauses have nothing to do with fencing. In truth, no one seriously imagines that the Bill is presented in this form because of the requirement to fence the road. The real reason is to get around the opposition of the court of verderers. I find it surprising that the county should choose to resort to such a device without even going to the arbitration provided for in the 1949 Act.
In fairness to the county, I will say that it is engagingly frank about why it has not proceeded to arbitration. As was stated candidly and with refreshing honesty by the hon. Member for Wyre, the reason is that the county admits that it is likely to lose if it goes to arbitration, and that any arbitrator is likely to uphold the opposition of the verderers as entirely reasonable.
It is possible to criticise the constitution of the verderers, as did the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) in an earlier intervention. Some of the criticism is overstated. The verderers are not a feudal organisation; their current constitution dates from 1949. They are, if anything, rather more representative and diverse in their origins than most quangos, in that they are appointed not by one body but by several bodies representing the various interests in the New Forest. However, their constitution is certainly idiosyncratic, and one could argue for a change.
An obvious change would be to make the New Forest a national park, and that was considered at the time that the national parks were designated. At that time, it was resolved not to designate the New Forest as a national park precisely because of the unique character of the verderers' court and the protection that they provided for the New Forest.
Possibly, that decision was wrong. Possibly, the verderers should have been swept aside, and a national parks authority put in their place. I understand that at least one member of the Countryside Commission at that time now takes the view that an error was made. But Parliament chose not to designate the New Forest a national park because it was going to rely on the verderers. Parliament, therefore, cannot now readily lend itself to brushing aside the objections of the people that it charged with the task of protecting the New Forest. It has to give the full weight to the opinion of the verderers that it would attach to the view of a national parks authority if it was resisting a road going through its area.

Mr. David Martin: The duties of the verderers are quite specific, and they are much narrower than the kinds of considerations now before Parliament. The duties that were given to them were essentially to protect the interests of the commoners. Nobody is suggesting that they would not be acting reasonably in rejecting this bypass, but the whole point is whether that should be the end of the matter.
Let us suppose that they had gone to arbitration and, as they no doubt expected, had lost, and had spent a lot of money doing that, what would they then do? Would the hon. Gentleman then back their coming to the House and saying, "The county council has wider considerations; let us have the bypass"?

Mr. Cook: I find it rather curious that the hon. Gentleman should suggest that, if the county council had


proceeded to arbitration and then lost, that should somehow commend this proposal to the House. The point that I was making is that arbitration has not even been advanced, and it has made it quite clear that it has not advanced arbitration, because it does not have any confidence that it would win.
The hon. Gentleman did make a very important point about the narrow nature of the interest and the remit of the verderers. That in a sense goes to the heart of the point that I was developing, that possibly the remit of the verderers is too narrowly drawn. Perhaps they are not adequate as guardians of the full development and the full protection of the New Forest. Perhaps some other kind of constitutional mechanism — a national parks authority readily suggests itself as an obvious substitute — is required.
The fact is that hitherto we have not chosen that course. Hitherto we have chosen to rely on the verderers for the protection of the New Forest. We cannot now breach those powers without taking on board the need to take the 1949 Act, dust it down and consider what we are going to replace it with. There is no point in pretending that, once we pass this Bill, if we choose to do so tonight, the powers of the verderers will somehow remain intact; that tonight we shall suspend them for the purposes of this Bill, but tomorrow we shall replace them for any future development.
We cannot pretend that in passing this Bill we are not creating a precedent. One may wish to defend the precedent, but one cannot duck the fact that this would be a precedent. There are, as the hon. Member for New Forest said, other organisations, some of them commercial, which are watching the progress of this Bill and might be quite likely to attempt to follow this precedent. I made this point to the representative of Dyson Bell, who kindly called for a civilised exchange about this Bill last week. He demurred, and I then asked him if this meant that Dyson Bell would decline to act for any other promoter who chose to come before us to take advantage of this precedent. This was greeted with a very eloquent silence. The truth, of course, as we all know, is that if we create this precedent other people will choose to take advantage of it. They will find people who are willing to put forward their Bill and they will certainly find a willing parliamentary agent.
In conclusion, my attitude to the Bill turns on the primacy I attach to preserving the integrity of the forest. I believe that that consideration should also be the most important consideration for the House.
Here I have to say that I found the report of the Lords Select Committee most disappointing — indeed, even disturbing. The report admitted that the outer route would inevitably affect the open forest. It then went on to say that the Committee had reached its decision on the basis of what it regarded as being the most important evidence — namely, the immediate environmental benefits of route 5A to the village of Lyndhurst.
That observation and conclusion is perfectly clear. The Lords Committee chose, quite deliberately and openly, to subordinate the interests of the forest to the environmental advantage of the village. That is the complete reverse of the conclusion of the inquiry into the local plan, which concluded that the environmental advantage to the village of the bypass was incidental, and that the first

consideration should be the protection of the forest. That, of course, was a bald line inspector; it was a bald line, but I believe that it was the right line.
The New Forest is a unique asset. If we chip away at it, we shall never be able to recreate it, any more than we would be capable of rebuilding those mediaeval cathedrals that date from the same time. The mass use of the motor car dates from only the last half-century. That is a small interval in the history of the New Forest, which was there centuries before the motor car.
Our first duty should be to make sure that the New Forest is still there when the era of the internal combustion engine has faded, and that when that time comes the heath, the woodlands, the forest, will survive to give future generations the same joy in the open freedom of the forest, the same wonder at the beauty and the balance of the natural landscape. I believe that we would be failing in that duty if we allowed this Bill a Second Reading tonight.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Peter Bottomley): It may be helpful if, at this point, I intervene briefly to restate the Government's view on the Bill. I am repeating what was said in another place.
It is traditional on a private Bill that the Government take a neutral stance. It is for the promoters to persuade Parliament that the powers they are seeking are necessary and justified. The Government do not wish to take sides on this issue.
Controversy has reigned for more than 50 years on the construction of a bypass for Lyndhurst. The need for a bypass is generally accepted. The route it should take has been the subject of considerable argument over many years. Alternative bypass routes have been canvassed. There have been two public inquiries and several other local consultations.
The route now adopted, known as route 5A for which parliamentary authority is sought by Hampshire council in the Bill, is a compromise. It is the subject of controversy.
It is right that any encroachment on the forest of the kind being debated this evening should be carefully considered. The Select Committee in the other place considered all the issues and allowed the Bill, endorsing route 5A, to proceed. In passing the Bill, that House accepted its Select Committee's view.
The Government appreciate the strong feelings held by the promoters, the residents of Lyndhurst and those hon. Members who petitioned against the Bill about the proposed route 5A. There is detailed argument to be heard.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I shall follow the Minister by making it quite clear from the Front Bench where the Opposition stand. The Opposition are not constrained to remain neutral.
I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) on two things. Last week, for the first time since I was too young to remember, I had the pleasure of being in the New Forest. I thought that it was important to see Lyndhurst, and indeed the New Forest. The hon. Gentleman's constituency is among the most beautiful in the country. I also congratulate him on his powerful speech this evening, which went a considerable way towards resolving some of my doubts about the Bill.
The issue is not simple. Inevitably there are competing and conflicting demands between the different interest groups. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) asked whether it was appropriate for hon. Members who do not live in the New Forest to take part in the debate. The debate has come to Parliament and it would be irresponsible for hon. Members who do not live in the New Forest to remain silent. However, I must point out that a relatively select and limited number of hon. Members are listening and taking part in the debate tonight. I shall embellish that point later. It is a problem of parliamentary procedure.
The Bill is of general and national interest. It is a question of how the national interest is to remain secure. While hon. Members are entitled to talk about the needs of local communities in 1988, 1992, or 1995, there is a need to maintain the New Forest and to keep it intact, not only for five or 10 years, but for generations that lie ahead. Tonight we are entrusted with a difficult balance.
My natural reaction would be that the New Forest should be maintained as intact as possible. That is a basic reflex response, but I recognise that the community of Lyndhurst has specific traffic problems. The difficulty of the debate centres around how to resolve those problems and, if it is possible, to satisfy all interest groups. It is impossible to find a definitive solution that would resolve all those issues. It would be churlish to say that the question is who should be disadvantaged in the most convenient way. The whole process of bringing a private Bill to Parliament inevitably creates a precedent.
It would be foolish for anyone to argue that no precedent would be created. The New Forest Act 1949 dictates the future of the New Forest. If the private Bill were to deviate from that legislation, it would create a precedent and allow potential developers to look with considerable interest at the area. For those reasons, I am encouraged in my initial reaction.

Mr. Mans: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that private Bills have sought to fence roads under the auspices of the New Forest Act 1949, so precedents are occurring all the time? This precedent should not concern hon. Members, because it does not relate to commercial interests.

Mr. Lloyd: I cannot accept that as a logical position, because the former Bills were confined to fencing roads. In this case we are talking about a different operation. We are talking not simply about fencing existing land but about the creation of an entirely new road on land which is part of the forest. To that extent it is qualitatively different.
The argument, from which hon. Members may draw different conclusions, can be put that breaching forest land would create a precedent for developers, as it is recognised that a greedy eye has been cast on the New Forest by would-be developers of oil and gas deposits. No doubt Parliament would consider whether such a Bill should be accepted, but if we are to set a precedent we must consider whether the matter is sufficiently special to warrant it.
I was interested in the view of the hon. Member for New Forest on how the process could have worked. There is a fundamental breach in the argument put forward in favour of the Bill. If an alternative exists—I have heard nothing to persuade me that that is not the case—that damages that argument, because, if we create a precedent in the New Forest, it must he under special circumstances,

and those must include there being no other possibility of achieving the same objective, if the hon. Member for New Forest is accurate in his contention, I find it difficult to accept the Bill for those reasons.
This week, another private Bill was before the House, the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill, which had been before a Select Committee. I do not invite the Minister to re-run the difficulties of three nights ago. When the Select Committee had sat for a considerable period, it came to certain conclusions which were not matters of party political disagreement. There was considerable agreement on those conclusions, because there is a principle that it is not up to Select Committees to reject arguments outright, but to examine the locus standi of the petitioners. The principle gives Select Committees a limited role, and it is then up to the promoters of the Bill to accept or reject the recommendations of the Committee. On Report on the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Bill, the recommendations of the Select Committee could have been given no significance. That is equally likely in relation to this Bill.
The argument that the most thorough examination of petitioners' cases will be in a Select Committee is at best minimal. Hon. Members are becoming increasingly suspicious of the Select Committee process. Not long ago the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill was considered by a Select Committee, a procedure which caused much consternation on both sides of the House, although there might have been some different views. Certainly the Minister thought that it was a worthwhile exercise; but he would have to feel that was the case.
The only time when I have enjoyed hearing about the spectacle of the private Bill process was when the hon. Member for New Forest described learned QCs lining the corridors of the House looking for something to do. That brought some satisfaction, as it would be perhaps the first time that members of the public struck back against the lawyers.
The private Bill procedure is not satisfactory, as it does not command the full attention of the House. Debates are not well attended and we do not see real interest from all hon. Members. At the time of the debate on the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill, the Government put pressure on Conservative Back Benchers, rightly or wrongly, to support a closure motion. The truth is that hon. Members were present that night not because they felt passionately about Felixstowe but because they felt passionately about the interests of their political party and their own role in Government, and supported the Government in forcing through the Bill.

Mr. Key: That is nonsense.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) says that is nonsense, but for all I know he may have been one of those hon. Members who were drinking champagne that night.

Mr. Key: I am not interested in the hon. Gentleman going on for 10 minutes about the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill when many hon. Members and members of the public outside the Chamber are more interested in the Hampshire (Lyndhurst Bypass) Bill.

Mr. Lloyd: In saying that, the hon. Gentleman misses the point at issue, which is whether a Select Committee is the right way to discuss the matter. It is not a trivial point, or a matter to be cast aside. If the hon. Member for


Salisbury cared about his own region he would do it far more service by making sure that matters concerning the New Forest are adequately discussed and that cases are taken on their merits, rather than leave them to be discussed in the House, where private Bills are handled very badly. The hon. Gentleman may debate that point, but I do not think that he can deny its validity in relation to the Bill.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The point that is regularly and properly made is that here is an opportunity, if the verderers' route was considered, to hold a public inquiry to which the people of Hampshire can contribute, and it is primarily their concern. The alternative procedure is for Parliament to amend the primary legislation, which allows the House to debate the future of the New Forest as one of this country's natural assets.
Consideration of those two alternatives would be far more satisfactory than looking at just part of an issue here, where many of the people who are affected by the issue cannot take part, and when many who do participate do not understand and appreciate the full effects of the issues in any event.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has anticipated my thoughts. It will cause some satisfaction to the hon. Member for Salisbury that I intend to leave the private Bill process, although I insist that those remarks are relevant to whether the issue is best dealt with through a private Bill because of the way in which objections are taken.
I have listened carefully to the submission of Hampshire county council and submissions put to me by other interested parties. One of the matters that weighed heavily with me was the contention of the county council that the matter had been adequately dealt with through a public inquiry process locally. The hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) referred to the public inquiry into the local plan and said that at least part of that was devoted specifically to a roads inquiry. I think that the hon. Gentleman would accept that the inquiry was not properly constituted to consider the line of route of the Lyndhurst bypass. From documents made available to me I understand that, at the time of the inquiry, the inspector considering the forest and downlands villages local plan said of the present proposed route:
I consider Route 5A to be marginally less damaging overall than the route rejected in 1976".
Therefore, the limited inquiry that has taken place has cast a considerble doubt upon the proposed route rather than justified it. I believe that a local public inquiry is the appropriate way to proceed.

Mr. Mans: Following the inquiry, planning permission was given and the Minister concerned decided not to call in that planning permission for further public inquiry. The planning procedures were followed to the letter and it has been made clear that the route with which we are concerned was examined by a Select Committee in the other place.

Mr. Lloyd: The fact that the Minister in another place took a certain view does not necessarily bind the House or the county council. Most of us have considerable experience of Ministers getting things wrong—no doubt

Ministers consider that such mistakes occur less often than we believe. However, on this occasion there is a considerable body of opinion that says that the Minister got it wrong. I will not delay the House by listing all the organisations that support that view and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston referred.

Mr. Robin Cook: The Secretary of State's failure to call in the original proposal is important. However, it should be noted that the Minister in the other place, who spoke rather more fully about the subject than the Minister tonight, made it clear that the fact that the Secretary of State chose not to call in the route for public inquiry did not imply approval of that route. He neither approved nor disapproved.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Perhaps it would help if I confirmed that nothing that I have said in any way contradicts what the Minister said in another place. The reason I was rather brief is that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) was rather lengthy.

Mr. Lloyd: I am sure that hon. Members found both those interventions informative.
I took the opportunity to visit Lyndhurst. I certainly would not claim that the dozen people to whom I spoke represented the unanimous view of the population. Certainly, some of them were strongly in favour of the road. The hon. Member for Wyre has sought to persuade me, with eloquence and vehemence, that the bypass is necessary to the community. However, other village residents have put forward the opposite view. They consider, for reasons already outlined, that it would be bad for the community and for the economy.
I am aware that a petition exists and it is claimed that it represents the views of more than half of the population, but it certainly does not represent the unanimous view of the community.
I have found it difficult to understand the traffic problems in the area. I asked local people how bad those problems were and the estimates of the worst traffic conditions varied considerably. Some people suggested that, at worst, the traffic delays lasted for 15 minutes. I find that difficult to comprehend as a major problem. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that I have an urban outlook and a delay of 15 minutes to cross my home city of Manchester would not be considered unreasonable. However, I accept that such delays may be a different matter in such a small community as Lyndhurst. Indeed, a 15-minute delay is not far off the estimate given by the county council and therefore it is important to take it into consideration. In fairness, I should say that another person told me that there were—at their worst—traffic delays of up to two hours, which was perhaps an extreme viewpoint. I merely report it as a matter of anecdote. It is precisely because such conflicts of opinion exist that the idea of a local inquiry into the route has considerable merit and is to be preferred to arguing anecdotally across the Chamber. It is far better that the issues should be put to a local inspector who could examine up-to-date traffic forecasts in detail.
Unfortunately, the detailed figures given by the county council are nine years old, dating from 1979. The more up-to-date figures refer only to a percentage increase, which makes it difficult to understand their validity. The right way to examine these traffic matters would be through a proper public inquiry.
People also mentioned the impact of the bypass on the village of Brockenhurst. I understand that the county council has no plans to introduce a bypass there, but some people are concerned that bringing a bypass to Lyndhurst will throw local traffic further down the road. I notice that the hon. Member for Wyre does not accept that—I raise it only because it was raised with me. It could have been adequately sorted out in the public inquiry. I am persuaded by the hon. Member for New Forest that, subject to information being made available by others, and given that the fallback of arbitration exists even now, the process could have been better handled in an alternative way. Local issues are far better dealt with locally and not in this House.
As far as my recommendation has any sway with my hon. Friends and the House in general, I say that the Bill does not have sufficient merit and is not exceptional enough to warrant a Second Reading at this stage.

Mr. Robert Key: In the short time that is available to us I shall endeavour to uncover some fresh perspectives on the problem. I have no pleasure in opposing my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson), who is a close neighbour, politically and literally. I admire him greatly and have learnt much from him in the short time that I have represented Salisbury — compared with the long time that he has represented New Forest. There are always gainers and losers and if I had been the hon. Member for New Forest I might, in the circumstances, have chosen the path of my hon. Friend. He must ensure that every inch, every centimetre of the forest is protected, but I hope that he will not misunderstand me if I take a contrary view on this occasion.
Lyndhurst must be seen from a national and international perspective. There is a fundamental issue of political approach here, too. To what extent will the market come to an acceptable solution? Should we engineer a solution in human terms by placing restrictions on car ownership? Can planning solve the problem? I recall that, in the 1960s, when I was still at school, Professor Buchanan produced his Norwich planning survey, which was going to solve Norwich's problems. A few weeks ago, I was in Norwich and it took 40 minutes to get out of the station in a bus, let alone go round the city.
We must think ahead about Lyndhurst and the forest. Whatever we do, traffic will increase and so will congestion, pollution and environmental damage—the problems will only get worse if we delay.
The environmental problems that all hon. Members experience in their constituencies are encapsulated in Lyndhurst. Typically, we find that demand for access to the countryside is increasing on all sides, from local people as well as from visitors. Demands from the military for training are also increasing. Demands for new houses are great in the rural areas—particularly from young people and those who cannot afford the sort of executive houses that are the only houses that can be built when land prices are high. Demands for light industry are growing; demands for out-of-town retailing facilities—which are great and controversial—are growing; demands on road transport are growing from private road users, who are

becoming increasingly prosperous, and from heavy commercial traffic. At the same time, demands for the protection of our countryside have never been greater.
All hon. Members have problems with bypasses in their constituencies. Bypasses are demanded and then the routes are fought over. I shall not be pro-bypass for my constituents in Salisbury but anti-bypass for the people of Lyndhurst.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on his bypass plans. There has never been a period in our history when there have been more plans for bypasses or more bypasses being completed. They have given much relief, particularly to the small rural communities.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the issue is not whether there should be a bypass, but where it should go? There is no dispute that, in due time, Lyndhurst should have a bypass. The dispute is about where it should go and whether it should prejudice the entity of the New Forest.

Mr. Key: Who decides where it should go? I shall address that question later.
Most hon. Members are deeply committed to conservation. It is very unusual to find someone who is not. In my constituency, we experience enormous pressures on conservation. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is well aware of them and we enjoy sharing Salisbury with him. The pressure on the south of England in particular is intense.
I have problems in my constituency that make those in Lyndhurst pale into insignificance. We have problems with Stonehenge, the Army, archaeology, road works, river plunderers, city excavation, treasure troves, the river Avon, water meadows, pollution, fish farms and canoeists. At the same time, the Nature Conservancy Council maintains Parsonage down, which is one of our most precious reserves, the Forestry Commission conserves Bentley wood, and I have the headquarters of the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas in my constituency. Yet Lyndhurst is only six miles away from the edge of my constituency.
We must face one or two facts whenever we consider these issues. First, there are those who believe that the New Forest should be a museum. As a friend of museums, I suggest that there is a revolution in museum theory and practice that believes in opening up history to the younger generation, improving access and encouraging mobility. In that regard, one has only to look at the Museum of London or the Salisbury and South Wiltshire museum to see that that is the case.
If one believes that the New Forest is not a museum but is living and evolving, and if one does not believe that our countryside and rural communities are museums that are kept for the weekend enjoyment of townsfolk, how can we condemn Lyndhurst to a future locked into the inadequacies of a road system that strangles, suffocates and poisons residents and visitors alike?
That was recognised in Government policy in the latest circular issued in January which said:
Concentrating on conservation without concern for the rural economy would result in the death of communities and in dormitory settlements whose inhabitants had no involvement in the evolution of their rural setting.
We must take care to balance our arguments along those lines.
The constitutional position has been well explored by other hon. Members. I shall concentrate only on one or


two aspects of it. There is no doubt that we are all fighting for the New Forest and for our environment. But who are we fighting for? Where are the vested interests? Are they the villages, the verderers, the tourists, the pressure groups, the public at large or the national, European or international public interests?
When the Whips are docile, as they are tonight, we must use our judgment as well as our powers of advocacy. I have listened to the evidence that has been presented and I believe that, given the fact that the objection of the verderers is so central to the debate, it is crucial to be clear who those honourable people are and who they represent. I believe that King John would have turned in his grave and that the ghosts would have walked the Rufus Stone if they had seen the way in which the verderers were treated in 1949, the way in which their court was decimated and their influence diluted. I believe that on this occasion the verderers have been sent naked into battle.
The predecessor of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, Colonel Crosthwaite-Eyre, said much about the court of verderers. He said that the court of verderers
stood impartially as an interpreter as to how far the Crown prerogative should go, but far more important as a local and immediate court, to which any local resident could come and appeal if he thought that the Crown had gone too far … That was the situation of the verderers in the time of William the Conqueror." —[Official Report; 1 November 1949; Vol. 469, c. 218.]
The body fell into disuse from Queen Elizabeth's time until Pitt and the 1877 Act.
Who wants the bypass? The county council, the district council, the parish council, the residents association, my noble Friend Lord Congleton, who piloted the Bill through another place and who lived in the Lyndhurst area for most of his life until he became a constituent of mine, all want it. Lord Denning, Lord Montagu, Lord Boyd-Carpenter and 3,000 residents who love the forest all want the bypass.
Who opposes the bypass? It is crucial to consider the verderers among them. Lord Manners, who was appointed by the Crown, and the Countryside Commission, the Forestry Commission, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, a county councillor and five elected verderers oppose it. The verderers are elected by the commoners, who own at least 1 acre of land and get their living from the forest. Incidentally, until 1949, commoners had to own 75 acres of land or be entitled to a parliamentary vote. On paper, there are 877 commoners out of a population in the New Forest of about 140,000. None of the verderers lives in Lyndhurst. There is only one family of people who are technically real commoners and only 10 of the commoners graze beasts to support their livelihood. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest suggested that I had my figures wrong. I can only say that I got them from the assistant solicitor of Hampshire county council and I have no reason to doubt the truth of what he told me.

Mr. David Martin: Apparently, the verderers have no salary, emolument or perk besides a fee buck and the fee doe annually, so they get little for their pains.

Mr. Key: Indeed, the situation is wholly changed. All the other cattle and ponies in the New Forest belong to owners who do not have commoners' rights but are licensed by the agister.
In their petition, the verderers accept the need for a bypass and crave leave to demonstrate that other schemes should be planned. That is an important point.
I shall now discuss the petition of the Council for the Protection of Rural England and the Ramblers Association. As a supporter of many environmental groups in my county, I was disturbed by some of the evidence presented to hon. Members on which we are supposed to base our judgment. The Council for the Protection of Rural England got its history wrong. It gave no consideration to the people of Lyndhurst and blatantly misrepresented in print the position of Hampshire county council. In its colourful and emotional leaflet the CPRE included a photograph not of the route but of an attractive woodland scene in the forest. The CPRE did not illustrate on its map the route that it advocated, which rather detracted from its argument. It claimed that the Bill avoided a public inquiry when, as we have heard, there have been two. In any case, what could be more public than a debate in Parliament? The CPRE says that it has proposed a viable alternative scheme. It has not. It does not even accept the need for a bypass in the material that it presented to the House, although I accept what the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said about the other place.
The promoters of the Bill are not blameless. I believe that they have misled us to some extent. On page 2 of their statement they say that the petitions of the Nature Conservancy Council and the Council for the Protection of Rural England and other bodies make no acknowledgement of the need for the bypass and complain of its alleged damaging effect. That is simply not true. When listening to the views of vested interests and pressure groups outside Parliament, we must be careful to use our own judgment, on the basis of personal experience.
One could hardly imagine a more reputable body than the Countryside Commisson. In its petition it accepts the need to find a balance and says that the forest cannot be sacrosanct. That is a very realistic approach.
However, one should not put one's trust in the Countryside Commission, because when there was a planning application in an area of outstanding natural beauty in my constituency, which involved the building of a factory farm and piggery, the Countryside Commission refused to oppose the planning application and to come to the aid of myself, the village and the district council. However, the Countryside Commission was wrong and lost, and the factory farm was not built in that area of outstanding natural beauty. We should not necessarily always assume that such bodies are right.
I say again that problems can sometimes rebound. Only a quarter of a mile from the New Forest, a constituent of mine is suffering. A family has, for generations, been grazing its animals outside the forest in winter and inside the forest in summer. The Nature Conservancy Council has said that it will turn that family's patch of grazing into a site of special scientific interest and that the family must stop using it for grazing land because it is not "according to nature". I suggest that that is absolute nonsense and that it is double standards in the Nature Conservancy Council.
I make those long points because I believe that we must be careful about listening to outside interests. We must rely on our judgment in such affairs. Environmental pressure groups will proliferate enormously. Sometimes they do not appear to know who their friends are or they think that


we are extremely naive. In coming years we must resist the temptation of seeing our role as advocates of particular pressure groups. If we do that, Parliament's role in deciding such issues will be enhanced. Far from tonight's situation — we have heard Opposition Members eloquently describe the Chamber being half empty and few people having sufficient time to devote three weeks to Committee discussions—we could enter a new era in which the judgment of Members of Parliament would become much more important on these issues.
In coping with decisions such as the Lyndhurst question, what we need more than anything else is sound judgment and common sense. In that spirit, I shall vote for the Second Reading.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The issues that arise from our debate on this Bill echo back to the past because during the previous Parliament, as the House will remember, we had debates on the Okehampton bypass. The principal issue then was whether it was right, by a Bill, to cut into a national park. The main issue that the hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson), who has the principal interest in tonight's debate, has made—many subsidiary issues have been raised—is that we as a House must decide whether we want to eat into the New Forest when it is not necessary to do so. That question would be much more difficult if nobody had worked out the problem and planned an alternative bypass route.
However, even if that were the case, a procedure has been laid down. We are risking a trespass into the change of the presumptions that the legislation in the 1940s provided for specifically. It is a valid and important point because Parliament debated a Bill and enacted it specifically to safeguard one of the most important natural areas of our country and our heritage. That issue is no less important now—and arguably it is more important.

Mr. Elliot Morley: The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), who has just spoken, appeared to misunderstand the nature of a pressure group and of a statutory body. The Nature Conservancy Council has a duty to advise Parliament and other statutory bodies about the impact of changes in important habitat, such as the New Forest, which contains many rare species of birds such as the Dartford warbler and the hobby, which are on schedule 1; sites of special scientific interest; flowers, moths, plants and mosses, which are extremely important and delicate parts of our habitat and must be protected. As an alternative route for the bypass could be considered, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission are absolutely right to put forward their points of view. They are not just pressure groups; they are doing their duty and doing it well.

Mr. Hughes: I am not a Hampshire Member. I have two interests. I have often been to the New Forest. I have relatives there and I have stayed there as a child and subsequently. I have good friends in Brockenhurst and Lyndhurst. I am a summer visitor, but I also have a concern, like anybody in this country, for our environment, and in that context the New Forest is particularly important. It is not for hon. Members but for those who are accountable to Parliament to alert us to

what is at stake, and they have made it their particular responsibility to tell the House and the country that we are taking too great a risk if we have a bypass on this route around this small village in the New Forest. The loss would be too great and the bypass should be resisted.

Mr. Mans: I am glad to hear about the hon. Gentleman's interest in the New Forest, but did he take the opportunity that was open to all hon. Members to visit the New Forest two weeks ago to see for himself exactly what the different routes would do to the environment and village?

Mr. Hughes: On that day I was not available. I have been down within the past three weeks and I was down before Christmas. I have been there sufficiently often to be aware of the issues. I also have friends who are there all the time, to whom I have talked. Clearly, I do not have the hon. Gentleman's historic interest as a locally elected! councillor in that area. But since he makes a potential complaint against people such as me, who do not pretend to speak as Hampshire men, I must make a complaint in turn.
The 1949 legislation established a system which, although antiquated, has historic traditions. The Court of Verderers was set up to allow people to make representations to it under a constitutional procedure. One can validly criticise the chief protagonists—I include the hon. Gentleman and his family, who clearly argued strongly in Hampshire for the bypass — for never availing themselves of the opportunity to go to the Court of Verderers to make a presentment, the technical word for their case.
Since the 1940s, that court has clearly accepted arguments for roads in the area and other potential environmental disadvantages after such cases have been put to them. It is wrong constitutionally for people to come to the House to argue for short-circuiting that procedure when they have not properly tested the one that has been shown to work.
Somebody reading or listening to this debate might think that the Court of Verderers was 300 or 400 years old, but the court, with its old name and tradition, was reconstituted in 1949 and given a role that was acceptable at a time when the country was legislating for national parks and the protection of the environment. Parliament did that conscientiously. It has never been challenged since.
In a recent letter to the newspapers, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. Hill) accepted that we should, not bypass the proper public inquiry. Writing in relation to the Falmouth estuary a few weeks ago he said:
Just to give some background, this private bill would have the effect of short-circuiting the normal planning process by way of public inquiry. Objectors are effectively deprived of making their voices heard".
The same point of what is the right procedure arises. The hon. Gentleman was speaking perfectly properly as a Hampshire Member.
That is a perfectly proper point and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that it is right that, when a constitutional procedure is laid down and so far not been found wanting, it should be tested. The hon. Gentleman, and those sharing his views on the issue—his father on the county council and others—should have gone to the Court of Verderers and made their case. If that had not succeeded, their case would have had some credibility. It


is notable that the county council representative on that court, elected to represent the people of Hampshire, opposes the Bill. There is an important environmental point. There is also an important procedural point. We should use the accepted procedure which clearly has worked.

Mr. Hill: The hon. Gentleman is giving a picture of the verderers' court as an amiable group to which the odd person in Lyndhurst goes to have a chat and put a case. The matter has been discussed for the past 12 years. I have said, in letters to people who have written to me, that the best solution would be to knock together the heads of people in Hampshire county council and the verderers' court so that they come up with a solution, rather than having to bring a private Bill to the House. The Bill is before the House tonight because those people have not been able to get it together. There has been no movement and this is the last possible way for the county council to obtain a decision on the bypass.

Mr. Hughes: I understand that point, but the hon. Gentleman is well aware of the recent events that have led to the presentation of the Bill. Only about a month ago, it appeared that the county council was going to vote the other way. The chief executive, the officers and their parliamentary agent all said that this was not the appropriate way because it would be a long drawn-out procedure, unlikely to achieve the reasonable solution that the hon. Gentleman would have preferred.
I understand why any community may want a bypass, but I am advised that the earliest date by which the bypass could be built, even if the Bill were passed, is 1992. There is no evidence that it would take longer by the other route, given that a public inquiry is immediately available. We must seek to redress the grievance of those people who suffer as a result of the traffic problems in Lyndhurst and the New Forest.
However, the evidence is not sufficiently persuasive that this route is the better route and it was marginal whether the county council would take that route, albeit out of frustration and mystification, rather than through any belief that it was the right route.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: The hon. Member for New Forest (Mr. McNair-Wilson) made a firm promise earlier that he was willing to act as an honest broker to bring the parties together. That would be a far better way rather than to try and push through the Bill, in view of the hon. Gentleman's opposition to it.

Mr. Hughes: That is quite right. We all try to respect each other's constitutional position. The hon. Member for New Forest is in an ideal position to do that. He has the constitutional responsibility in this place for that part of our country.
If we take the conventional route, laid down by parliamentary statute, the verderers' court can enable things to happen. That has been shown by, for example, the widening of the A31 and by the fact that it has allowed 1,000 acres of development in the New Forest.

Mr. Mans: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hughes: I shall give way in a moment.
In 1986, the verderers' court opposed an attempt to put a gas pipeline under the forest, but it then produced a

better solution and the pipeline was still laid. The court appears to have done a sensible job. One of the things that troubles us all is that a body that works well is never criticised until somebody finds that it does not work to his advantage. Then it is thought to be unsuitable and outdated. When tested, the verderers have not been found wanting, whatever people may have presumed in the past.

Mr. Mans: The hon. Gentleman makes a point about the A31 dual carriageway. Does he agree that that road was built not by using the New Forest Act 1949 but by using a new public act, the New Forest Act 1964? Therefore, no verderers were involved. The verderers did not put forward any views on that under their statutory duty in the 1949 Act.

Mr. Hughes: I accept that there was a different procedure. I do not accept that the verderers had no role to play because I think that they still have the general role of guardianship of the New Forest. Therefore, they have a locus. But I accept that there was a technical and statutory difference.
On the timetable point, I understand that a public inquiry could be held. I am happy to be challenged if I am wrong about this, but I want to put it on the record. It is important that we do not allow ourselves to be bamboozled by wrong information. A public inquiry could test the information. I understand that a public inquiry could be held under the Highways Act 1980 to confirm classified road and side road orders. I understand that such orders would have been necessary but for the Bill and that Hampshire county council could revoke its planning permission, as it is allowed to do in exceptional circumstances, under section 45 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971. Lastly, the Secretary of State could call in the application for planning permission under section 35 of the Town and Country Planning Act and precipitate an earlier decision. So I hope there is no strong argument that cannot be rebutted that the normal procedure could produce a solution as quickly as the procedure that the promoters of the Bill wish for in this place.
The national environmental issue is important. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) has addressed the alternative route. We have the procedural issues. We have to address also our duty as a House. I am conscious that the present allocation of time is limited. I have no idea whether the promoter will allow us to have further time. I ask him to do so. I do not wish to keep Hampshire Members from speaking. Clearly, their voice should be heard. But we have to ask ourselves what our role is. It seems to me that it is to test whether as individual Members, not whipped by party, we believe that it is right that we should take to ourselves this process which, as the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) and others have pointed out, we do not carry out with great conviction, when alternatives are readily available with which the people of Hampshire would be just as happy.

Mr. Hardy: Do we not have another responsibility? The Government have said that they are neutral on the issue. So that they can maintain a feeble and suspect form of neutrality, they have disregarded the fact that the public agencies which are charged with the duty of giving advice to the Government and Parliament are ignored.

Mr. Hughes: That is true. The hon. Gentleman, whose commitment to the environment is well known, reminds us


that the Countryside Commission and the Nature Conservancy Council have the responsibility to make sure that Parliament is alerted to matters of concern. The question has been raised whether some of the information produced in the context of the debate is accurate. That is exactly the sort of argument that should be tested at a public inquiry. If the Nature Conservancy Council or the Countryside Commission is not accurately representing a view, it is the inspector's duty to check on that. No doubt all of us have taken part in public inquiries—

Mr. Mans: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 106, Noes 26

Division No. 195]
[9.59 pm


AYES


Alexander, Richard
Lawrence, Ivan


Amess, David
Lee, John (Pendle)


Amos, Alan
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Lightbown, David


Ashby, David
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Atkinson, David
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Batiste, Spencer
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Maclean, David


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Mans, Keith


Boswell, Tim
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Bottomley, Peter
Mates, Michael


Bowis, John
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Monro, Sir Hector


Buck, Sir Antony
Moss, Malcolm


Burt, Alistair
Neubert, Michael


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Carrington, Matthew
Paice, James


Chope, Christopher
Patnick, Irvine


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Price, Sir David


Cope, John
Raffan, Keith


Cran, James
Redwood, John


Critchley, Julian
Rhodes James, Robert


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Riddick, Graham


Curry, David
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Day, Stephen
Rowe, Andrew


Dorrell, Stephen
Ryder, Richard


Dunn, Bob
Shaw, David (Dover)


Durant, Tony
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Fairbairn, Nicholas
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Fenner, Dame Peggy
Shersby, Michael


Fookes, Miss Janet
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Forth, Eric
Stanbrook, Ivor


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Stern, Michael


Gill, Christopher
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Summerson, Hugo


Hannam, John
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Harris, David
Thorne, Neil


Haselhurst, Alan
Tredinnick, David


Hayward, Robert
Viggers, Peter


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Hill, James
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Holt, Richard
Waller, Gary


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Watts, John


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Widdecombe, Ann


Janman, Tim
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Wood, Timothy


Key, Robert



Kilfedder, James
Tellers for the Ayes:


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Mr. Julian Brazier and


Knapman, Roger
Mr. James Arbuthnot.


NOES


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Benyon, W.
Cook, Robin (Livingston)





Cox, Tom
Pendry, Tom


Gow, Ian
Pike, Peter L.


Hardy, Peter
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Haynes, Frank
Ruddock, Joan


Home Robertson, John
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Spearing, Nigel


Kennedy, Charles
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Kirkwood, Archy
Wallace, James


Livsey, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)



McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Tellers for the Noes


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Mr. Elliot Morley and


McNamara, Kevin
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr Hardy: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. During the debate—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Order. I cannot take apoint of orer at this juncture.
Question put accordingly, That the Bill be now read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 96, Noes 28.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second time and committed.

Mr. Hardy: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Just before 10 o'clock you may have heard me say that the Government were exhibiting a very strange form of neutrality. The Minister assured the House that the Government were distinctly neutral with regard to the Hampshire (Lyndhurst Bypass) Bill. I noticed that the Secretary of State for the Environment, the Minister to whom the Nature Conservancy Council and the Countryside Commission report — those bodies are appointed by him—disregarded their advice and voted in the Aye Lobby with several other Ministers. It seems that vote has not followed voice.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The hon. Member knows full well that the way in which hon. Members and Ministers vote in the House has nothing whatsoever to do with the Chair.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Will you give the House a ruling tonight? I did not know that it was customary for an hon. Member not representing a particular constituency to move a private Bill relating to a constituency other than his own. Tonight that has happened. I wonder whether it will be in order from now on for any hon. Member to move a private Bill relating to any other hon. Member's constituency, regardless of what his or her constituency interests may be.

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is not for me to give a ruling on the matter, but I can tell the hon. Member that that is a frequent occurrence in the House.

Orders of the Day — Criminal Injuries (Compensation) (Northern Ireland)

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That the draft Criminal Injuries (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved. —[Mr. Stanley.]

Mr. Kevin McNamara: May I say, after what has gone on earlier today, that on this occasion I am giving two and a half cheers to the Government.
The Opposition welcome the fact that the Government, through the order, have taken the opportunity to update the provisions for the compensation of victims of criminal injury.
We share the commitment expressed by the Secretary of State to the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights about the provision of proper compensation to victims, and to support schemes that provide advice, assistance and emotional support to those who have suffered. The Secretary of State's reported promise to provide public funds in Northern Ireland to stimulate the development of victim support schemes is to be welcomed.
On the specific changes to the 1977 order, we are pleased to see several changes, including the fact that the Government intend to provide for a standard bereavement award of £3,500 under articles 3(3) and 9(5). We welcome the extension of the definition of "relative" in article 2 to include common law spouses. We welcome, too, the provision in article 5(2) to allow compensation in certain circumstances to the victims of domestic violence. Society has for far too long looked with indifference on domestic violence generally. Just as we are of the view that those who assault should be prosecuted, whether it happens outside or inside the home, so it follows that victims of assault should receive compensation, whether the assaults occur inside or outside the home.
We support the changes that will result in more equal treatment of the widows and widowers. The provision under article 9 of compensation of up to £5,000 for rape victims who, as a result, give birth to a child is welcome. However, there are some changes in the order with which we are far from happy and for which we seek further explanation.
In some ways this may be regarded as a mean-minded piece of legislation that seems to have been designed to minimise the cost to the Exchequer of the compensation of victims of crime. While the maxima for discretionary payments to a spouse or a child under article 10(3) remain at the levels set out in the 1977 order —£10,000 and £1,000 respectively — the limit on claims under article 5(12) has been raised from £250 to £400. In addition, the proportion of income regarded as having been devoted to personal expenditure by a deceased victim is arbitrarily increased in article 7(3) from 20 per cent, to 25 per cent, of total income. Are we to assume, therefore, that the Government believe that breadwinners have become more selfish than they used to be and now spend more of their earnings down at the pub, the racecourse or playing canasta and that, somehow or other, they have increased their personal expenditure by 5 per cent, in the past 11 years?
The net effect of the provisions will be a reduction, in real terms, of the level of compensation available to


victims and, in many cases, to the dependants to an extent greater than the £3,500 provided in the bereavement grant. As well as reducing the level of payments in that way the Government propose to exclude from compensation a number of classes of victims in what may well be, in practice, an arbitrary and unfair fashion.
Under article 5(15) police officers injured while attempting to arrest suspects and members of the public injured while performing their duty to assist the police will be excluded from compensation unless the risk they have taken is judged by the Secretary of State to have been an exceptional one. That provision would seem stupid anywhere, but in the context of Northern Ireland it smacks of lunacy.
Why on earth are the Government seeking to discourage people from assisting in the apprehension of suspects? If the argument is that other forms of compensation may apply, at least in the case of police officers, why does the legislation not simply require that they be taken into account when assessing the level of compensation? The order, having punished people for doing their duty, then provides in article 6(1) for the potential recipient's "character and way of life" to be taken into account in assessing whether and what amount of compensation should be paid.
If a hit-and-run driver breaks the legs of a pedestrian, and that pedestrian is a Minister of State, will he receive more than his PPS in similar circumstances? Will that mean that a secretary will receive more compensation than a tramp in the street? Should differences in lifestyle affect the decision that is made? Are payments to be based on moral judgments rather than objective criteria, such as the nature of the injury and the pain and suffering caused?
Article 5(9) provides that no compensation shall be paid to any person who has, at any time, been a member of an unlawful association or engaged in acts of terrorism. Those who, in common with us, abhor all acts of violence in Northern Ireland may feel that there is justice in denying compensation to those who mete out death and destruction when they themselves become its victims. I do not expect anyone to disagree with that general proposition. However, what happens to a man or woman who was dragged into trouble some 15 years ago when feelings were first aroused? If someone was convicted in 1971 of membership of Saor Eire, but has nothing further to do with it—that organisation no longer exists—and, as a family man aged 34, is killed by a mugger on the streets of Belfast, will his wife and children be denied compensation? The same could be said of someone who was a young member of the Red Hand commandos.
What about the statute of limitations? In such cases, should relatives have to rely on the whim of the Secretary of State's discretion, exercised under article 10(2)? We have further reservations about article 6(7) that provides for deductions for time spent in hospital, and article 5(12) which deals with mental impairment. In addition, we note the detailed and careful comments of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights regarding the legislation. We endorse many of the points that it has made, including its objection to the unequal treatment, in relation to appeals, of appellants and the Secretary of State.
We note that on some issues, the Government have made changes in line with the commission's comments, but on many others they have not done so. We would welcome

confirmation that the Secretary of State does intend that the statistical information on the operation of the order will be made available later this year.
I have already made it clear that we have some reservations about the detail of the order. As we welcome the updating of the legislation that it offers and part of the broadening of its scope that it contains, we shall not divide the House on it, and I understand that my colleagues in the Social Democratic and Labour party accept the main points that I have made and will not seek to detain the House by making further comments.

Rev. William McCrea: The explanatory notes on page 27 of the order tell us that
The principal amendments are … to restrict the cases in which compensation is awarded for nervous shock".
Article 5(2)(b) states:
no person who is responsible for causing the injury will benefit from the compensation if it is paid.
Will the Minister clarify for us the matter of compensation that is paid to a family for nervous shock when it is found that the father of the home was a willing participant in an act of terrorism?
Take, for example, a family which claims that it had been held at gunpoint. The father claims that IRA bombers came to him—a security man—and told him that they were holding his family at gunpoint, so that he would have to admit them with their bomb to carry out their wilful destruction and murder. Under the order, will the Government pay compensation for nervous shock to that family, if it is discovered that the father was part of the original plan to commit murder and bring destruction to other families, the UDR, members of the security forces, or innocent civilians?
I have been informed of a serious case in which a person claimed to have been forced to admit IRA bombers to Castlecourt in Belfast. He alleged that his family was held at gunpoint at Turf Lodge. A short time ago he was tried, and acquitted on a technicality, for the La Mon murders. It would be a disgrace if a security man for the city of Belfast was suspected of having—indeed known to have —connections with IRA terrorism, and his family could get compensation from Her Majesty's Government and run laughing all the way to the bank.
I hope that the Minister will look into the murder of two UDR men last night. The person in question was from Turf Lodge and was the man who was tried and acquitted on a technicality for the brutal murders of La Mon. He is called Brophy. Will the Minister look into this information, and confirm or deny its truth?

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. John Stanley): I want to answer some of the points made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara). I shall write to him about those that I did not pick up quickly enough.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the importance of victim support schemes. I entirely endorse that sentiment. We are conscious of the needs of victims—particularly of elderly victims, whose needs are not wholly met by financial compensation and who need other forms of support. They need practical support in the home, and moral support at what is often a traumatic time.
I have been much impressed by the victim support work that is being done in the Province, but I also know that it


lags somewhat behind the development of such schemes in England and Wales. We are in the process of rectifying that. I have already announced an additional allocation of £47,000 for grants to local schemes in Northern Ireland in the coming financial year. That brings the total for such provision to £70,000. That is a substantial percentage uplift and I am confident that the significant increase in funding will produce a material boost to victim support scheme activity in the Province. It is somewhat overdue, and I am sure the House will be glad to know that it is in hand.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North referred to the decisions that we have made in relation to discretionary payments. In article 10 of the order we have made some small but important changes in the provisions for making discretionary payments to a widow and her children. We have removed an anomaly that prevented a discretionary payment being made to a widower. We have increased the discretionary payment limit for a child from £1,000 to £1,300 to keep it broadly in line with inflation. Although no change has been made in the adult limit, we have ensured—this is the important point for the hon. Gentleman — by the introduction of a bereavement award of £3,500, that the total sum paid to a widow or widower as an expression of public sympathy has been restored, in real terms, to the value of the adult discretionary limit when it was last raised in 1982.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the level of personal upkeep deduction. I am glad to tell him that the original proposal—the one that he mentioned in his speech—is one that, subsequently, we have decided not to pursue. Article 7(3) provides that where the victim has died, one fifth of his income shall be assumed to have been spent on his personal upkeep and will be deducted when calculating compensation. It had been proposed to increase that deduction to one quarter, but following representations, particularly from the Police Federation, we decided to retain the current deduction figure at one fifth.
As to accidental injuries, the hon. Gentleman was right to refer to article 5(15), which eliminates from the scheme accidental injury sustained in the course of law enforcement unless the applicant can show that when the injury occurred he was taking a risk that was, for him, exceptional.
Accidental injuries do not normally form part of a criminal injuries compensation scheme, but the 1977 order provides for compensation to be paid for injuries accidentally sustained when trying to uphold the law. Over recent years, however, case law has extended the interpretation of this provision so that now even a tenuous link between the injury and the act of arresting a criminal is enough to establish an entitlement to compensation. This new exceptional risk requirement had been a feature of the Great Britain scheme since 1979, when for the same reason it had become necessary to restore the original intention of the scheme. Although it is true that the restriction will mostly affect police officers, the number of such cases will undoubtedly be comparatively few, and those officers will be no worse off financially than any other policeman injured during the normal course of duty. In addition, as the hon. Gentleman has said, there are other benefits to which a police officer may be entitled, such as paid sick leave and industrial injuries benefit, and he can take civil action if necessary if another party has

been negligent. In an extreme case, when an officer has had to retire early, there are the enhanced pension entitlements and gratuity entitlements which can be paid by the police authority.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North asked whether the introduction of the exceptional risk provision might deter ordinary citizens from helping the police to deal with a crime that they see being committed. We do not consider that that will be the case. The relevant provision of article 5(15) refers to a risk that was exceptional for a person to take at the time of his injury. Helping the police to arrest a criminal or to prevent a crime would not be a normal activity for a member of the public. In those circumstances, the risk taken would be regarded as exceptional in probably all cases, and compensation would be paid.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the question of better statistical information in relation to the operation of this order. That is a matter on which I have focused. I think that there is a requirement for improved statistical information. That will be much aided when we have additional computer facilities, which will be made available to the Department. I share the hon. Gentleman's wish for improved statistical reporting on the operation of the criminal compensation scheme. We shall try to make progress with that as soon as the necessary computerisation of the records permits.
In answer to the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea), paragraph 12 of article 5 makes two amendments to the provisions governing compensation for mental impairment. The first requires the injury to be a serious and disabling mental disorder. The medical reports will indicate whether an injury falls into that category and the courts will, in due course, define in case law the forms of mental impairment that will qualify for compensation. I stress that the 1977 order sought to achieve the same effect by imposing a minimum threshold of £1,000 for mental impairment. In practice, that measure alone did not stop compensation being awarded for relatively minor or transient psychiatric conditions. In this order, we seek to restore the original intention of the previous legislation. I assure the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster that I shall examine the case to which he referred and I shall write to him on how the provisions in this order will affect that case.

Rev. Ian Paisley: At Question Time, the Prime Minister told me that there would be an investigation into the great tragedy in the centre of Belfast. Will the Minister ensure that the people making the inquiries inquire into the case described by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Rev. William McCrea) because there is serious concern in Belfast that the security gates involved in the incident were manned by a person of Mr. Brophy's character and pedigree?

Mr. Stanley: I have noted what the hon. Gentleman said and I shall take account of his comments.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Criminal Injuries (Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 1st February, be approved.

Orders of the Day — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

Orders of the Day — CRIMINAL LAW

That the draft Drug Trafficking Offences (Enforcement in England and Wales) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 4th February, be approved.

Orders of the Day — NORTHERN IRELAND

That the draft Statistics of Trade and Employment (Northern Ireland) Order 1988, which was laid before this House on 28th January, be approved. — [Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PETITION

National Health Service

Mr. Simon Hughes: I seek leave to present a petition from patients, relatives, health care workers and friends of Guy's hospital in my constituency of Southwark and Bermondsey. The petition was brought here by nurses representing all the nurses' unions: the Royal College of Nursing — in a slightly different category—the Confederation of Health Service Employees and the National Union of Public Employees. The 1,250 signatures have been collected over the past week. The petition is aimed at influencing the Government to be more supportive of the Health Service at this time of crisis. It ends with this prayer, which those who signed it feel strongly should be taken into account by the Government in the coming days and weeks:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will do everything in its power to urge the Government to show its support for the proper provision of health care in this country by taking action to maintain the standard of provision of service by and to improve the level of staffing in the National Health Service.
I hope that that will meet with a welcoming response from Ministers and that the concern expressed by my petitioners and many like them will be met by the Government sooner rather than later.
To lie upon the Table.

Government Data Network

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise the question of the Government data network. I begin by declaring an interest, as a consultant to the Electronic Engineering Association. It was through my work with that body that I became aware of the existence of the project, although I should add that I have no connection with any of the companies bidding for the contract. Indeed, I am sure that the EEA is strictly neutral and simply takes a benevolent interest in the project as a whole.
Having become aware of the project, I was surprised to find that the reaction to it in certain parts of the House and the media was rather negative. When I understood the concept, it struck me as having exciting rather than frightening potential. It also appeared to be an example of how a Government decision could be directly beneficial to British industry.
I take this opportunity to look at the matter in a more positive light. Obviously, I should like to examine with my right hon. Friend the Minister the doubts that have been expressed and to probe the Government's commitment to the project.
I had better confess that I am not a technical expert, far less a computer wizard. I can only try to explain in lay language what I understand the Government's data network to be — that is, a new and advanced communications medium. I understand that one should try to imagine a system of pipework, perhaps reminiscent of some examples of modern architecture, through which information invisibly flows.
Secondly, it is a medium that several Government Departments can share. I understand that the initial thinking is that four Departments would be involved—the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise, the Home Office and the Department of Health and Social Security. But the network would have the potential for others to be incorporated in due course.
The third feature of the GDN is that it would be supplied and serviced by an independent contractor. Discussion and examination of the project has advanced to the point where there are three contenders. In no particular order, they are the Computer Sciences Company working with British Telecom, Racal-Scicon Ltd. and Cable and Wireless working with ICL.
In simple broad terms, that is what GDN is all about. It is not somehow the apparatus of a police state, of which we should beware. It is plainly and simply an up-to-date means of conveying information. Nor is it an arrangement that poses an inherently greater threat to privacy, about which, naturally, we should have some regard. It is just as easy to pass a manilla file of information at the moment, and no greater ease is provided by going for a sophisticated electronic network of this kind.
There are a number of important advantages in the Government contemplating this step. The first is that the GDN implies a large network with a considerable capacity. It could probably support, in the early stages, as many as 100,000 terminals. Such an installation would enable the Government to cater for their communications needs for some long way ahead.
By the very nature of things, demand will inevitably rise. The GDN will give the Government the basics of a system capable of almost limitless expansion and with considerable built-in versatility. In the future, one simple connection point could serve all the communications needs of voice, computers, telex, facsimile machines and video conferencing. All the things which today require separate and therefore more costly and less flexible circuits will be linked to just one all-purpose communications medium.
The second advantage of GDN is adaptability. The Government have already made a commitment to an international standard known as open systems interconnection, which offers the means of connecting a whole host of information technology equipment from different suppliers on to one single communications system. Therefore, GDN offers a unique opportunity to put this commitment into action.
Thirdly, GDN offers the Government the prospect of considerable cost savings. The Government would be avoiding a huge capital outlay by utilising private sector investment in the implementation and operation of the network. They would be equipping themselves with a service which is expected to be cheaper to use.
The Government are already heavily involved in using publicly available services for transfer of information. My right hon. Friend the Paymaster General will probably be able to confirm that the costs to Government have been rising remorselessly as the volume of transactions has increased. It is probably difficult for an exact cost figure to be estimated at the present time, but I noticed that a figure of £300 million over 10 years was mentioned in a discussion on the "World at One" programme on BBC Radio 4 on Monday.
It is not really fair to apply that figure to the Government data network. I believe that the figure originates from a guesstimate by the Treasury's Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency of what it might cost the four Departments that could be linked in a GDN, if they were to go about making their own individual provision. The essential point to remember in trying to understand the scale of cost is that the Government would be procuring a service rather than a system.
The fourth advantage for the Government to proceed down that road is that there would be a saving in the problem of attracting skilled personnel into the Government service. The Government service would find it difficult to compete on salary scales with the private sector. The approach of a privately implemented GDN overcomes the significant skill shortage in Government, especially in telecommunications design and network management. Equally, I understand that the adoption of a GDN would not pose any significant threat to existing jobs in the Government service.
Fifthly, there is a positive attraction to the Government in having private sector input. A major advantage, therefore, would be the fulfilment of one of the Government's prime objectives — to encourage private sector investment in public service. There would also be a competitive element, and not only now when the project is at the tendering stage; if it comes into being, there would still be a competitive element in operation because Government Departments would not be forced to use the service, if it did not yield a cost advantage over already publicly available alternatives.
A less direct but none the less important benefit to flow from the Government's adoption of a GDN is that it would give a tremendous boost to the information technology industry in this country. We have some very good companies which would claim to have a leading edge in technology at the present time. We have some fine technical minds working in the information technology industry in this country, and it would be a great opportunity to exploit that fact at the present time. Therefore, it would be a significant uplift to the industry if the project were to go ahead.
Allied to that would be the importance for export potential. I am given to understand that there is vast export potential for such technology. If the Government were to show their confidence in the system, that would be a demonstration to the rest of the world that Britain can make innovative use of advanced technology and much good could flow from that.
Finally, in a more prosaic manner, it could be shown that the GDN would allow an all-round improved service. It means quicker access to information for those who operate the systems and are entitled to that information. If hon. Members took up a constituency case with the Department of Health and Social Security, they would not be told that there was a delay because the file would not be found as it travels between Newcastle upon Tyne or Blackpool and the Department in London. Such information could be retrieved much more quickly. Perhaps it is not too much to hope that the system would evolve to become even more customer-friendly by providing a better service in the delivery of benefits to members of the public.
I referred to the fact that disadvantages have been perceived by some people in their examination of the project. There is a worry that what it really means is the transfer of data between Departments. This seems to be an abiding fear of the National Council for Civil Liberties. As I understand it, the information of each Department involved in the GDN would travel separately in the system, with electronic protection built in. I believe that the jargon is that each Department would be a closed user group. Nevertheless, it is inevitable that there should be worries about privacy. I hope that my hon. Friend can offer assurances about the relationship of the Data Protection Act 1984 to GDN and also say whether the Data Protection Registrar is satisfied that the GDN creates no new loopholes.
As I have already mentioned, if there is a deliberate intention in some part of the Government service to transfer information, almost no method of data storage and transfer is proof against it. But taking information out of GDN in an unauthorised manner or passing a document would arguably be more difficult than anything else one could think of. Banks use data communication systems, and they have great regard for privacy.
Security is the allied problem. It raises the wider question of whether people outside the Government service could tap into information. I believe that that risk can be countered by messages being scrambled within the system. However, I imagine that security forms a major part of the specification that the Government would insist that tenderers should meet before taking the project further.
Then there is the question of a strike threat to the system. Again, I understand that, once the network has been created, it is difficult to pull the plug, so to speak. In

any case, as the network does not hold information but is a means of transferring it, there would still be other ways of communication if for any reason something went wrong with the GDN.
Looking at the balance of advantages and disadvantages, I believe that the Government should go ahead with the GDN when they are satisfied that adequate safeguards are in place. Generally speaking, the Government should take advantage of modern technology where they can, especially if they can back a significant portion of British industry at the same time. My impression of Government Departments over the years has been that they are often reluctant to embrace new technology and that they trail behind others in taking it on, when Government ought to be in the van, setting an example.
The GDN seems to present a golden opportunity for the Government to place their internal data communications on an advanced footing. I am encouraged by the news that invitations to tender have been issued today, I understand. I hope that my hon. Friend will confirm the Government's commitment and enthusiasm for the development of the project and promise an early decision when the tenders have been returned and examined. I believe that this is an opportunity which we should not throw away.

The Paymaster General (Mr. Peter Brooke): My hon. Friend the Member for Saffron Walden (Mr. Haselhurst) has done the House a service in raising the subject of the Government data network tonight, and I am grateful to him for the opportunity to discuss what I shall henceforth call the GDN. It is a major and innovative project. If it goes ahead, it will bring widespread benefits both within Government and, I believe, in the private sector.
Yet, regrettably, there has been a great deal of misunderstanding and misrepresentation of the project in the press and elsewhere. My hon. Friend is very well informed on the technical and policy aspects of the project and has given me the opportunity both to explain the project to the House and to set the record straight—a process to which he has made his own contribution.
The GDN is an exciting project, and my hon. Friend's speech was a bullish one, full of enthusiasm. I share that enthusiasm, but it is also the lot of a Treasury Minister to point out hard realities. So, before we all get carried away with euphoria, I must make it absolutely clear that at this stage the GDN is a proposal, and no more.
There is a clear need for data communications within Government, and I shall say more about this shortly. The GDN looks to be a good way of meeting this need. We now know that it is a technically feasible route. The four Departments—Customs and Excise, the Department of Health and Social Security, the Home Office and the Inland Revenue — and the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency have recently signed memoranda of agreement with the three potential suppliers, identified by my hon. Friend: Computer Sciences Company with British Telecom, Cable and Wireless with International Computers Ltd. and Racal-Scicon Ltd. This is basically an agreement that each supplier's offering meets at least the minimum requirements set out by the Government.
But the acid test is financial. The Government have clearly stated that the final decision on whether the GDN goes ahead will be made on the basis of whether it offers


better value for money, over the life of the project, than the alternatives. As my hon. Friend said, invitations have been issued to the three potential suppliers to tender for the GDN. All are well aware that if they are to succeed they must produce bids which are keenly priced, and which take full advantage of the growth potential of the GDN. They are also quite clear about the risks involved in bidding for a project that has yet to be approved. It is now up to them to ensure that the GDN moves from being an attractive technical proposition to being a commercial reality.
Why do we need a GDN at all? To answer that question we need to look at what the future holds. Information technology is now being used to support a much wider range of tasks, and that will increase in the future. In 1987, the number of terminals in Departments was about 65,000. Their plans indicate a figure of 155,000 by 1992, with a likely growth to 240,000 by 1995. By the turn of the century, possibly 350,000 terminals could be in use on desks in Government Departments. This huge and sustained investment is directed to one purpose: improving the quality and efficiency of Government business.
However, effective data communication is an essential part of achieving this progress. It provides the bridge between geographically dispersed offices—for example, in the Inland Revenue—and central processing sites. It also provides the means of communicating between the many different computer systems within each Department. Often, to do a job effectively, an individual will require access to data from a variety of different systems within the Department. Data communication makes it possible for that individual to access those systems from a single terminal on his or her desk, rather than having to peregrinate using a multitude of different pieces of hardware. That objective is clearly reflected in the IT strategies of Departments, particularly those, such as the DHSS, with large dispersed organisations dealing with members of the public.
A GDN is one way of providing that data communications infrastructure. Its attractions are that, first, it makes the best use of scarce technical skills within Government; secondly, it shares circuits and switches to minimise capital costs and to make the best use of capacity; and, thirdly, by placing the implementation and operation of the network within a private sector supplier, it avoids distracting Departments from their mainstream objectives to the provision of services which, though essential, are incidental to the work of Government.
The role of Government so far has been to set out their requirements, and to encourage suppliers to come forward to meet those requirements. I know that all three potential suppliers believe that the GDN makes sound business and commercial sense for Government. I think that they also have an eye to the wider commercial opportunities, both in this country and abroad, that successful implementation of a GDN would open up for them. That is why they have all invested so much time and effort in preparing to bid for the project. It is now up to them to translate the potential advantages of a GDN into bids that make convincing economic sense for Government.
I mentioned a few moments ago the advantages of sharing circuits and switches. That brings me to an area that has caused much confusion and misunderstanding

—that of security and privacy. My hon. Friend rightly spent much of his time on this, and invited me to deal with it in my reply. I am happy to do so.
Let me make one point absolutely clear at the outset. The GDN project provides for the sharing of circuits and switches because this makes economic sense. It does not provide some huge computing facility for the whole of Government; and it does not provide open access by Departments to each other's data. I will return to this later.
The importance of security for GDN was recognised at an early stage of the project. Consultations took place with the relevant bodies, such as the Data Protection Registrar, and with computer security experts within Government and from the IT industry. The security policy for the network, together with the implementation plan, has been established using specialist advice.
Security of data transmitted over a network is basically concerned with three things: first, data must arrive where it is intended to arrive, and nowhere else; secondly, it must arrive as it was sent, and not be corrupted in transmission; and, thirdly, it must not be accessed in transit by unauthorised people.
No system can be completely secure; absolute security would be both prohibitively expensive and impractical to use. The security planned to be built into the GDN is designed to provide adequate protection for the applications likely to use the network, but it is not designed to handle nationally classified data.
The responsibility for determining whether security is adequate for any particular application rests with the owner of the data in the Department concerned. If a Department considers that the GDN does not offer sufficient security for a particularly sensitive application, it must consider additional security measures, such as encryption. Conversely, any Department connecting to the network must have in place adequate security measures of its own to ensure both the integrity of its own data and that it will not put at risk the data of other users. There will be clear guidelines about the level of security required of departmental systems before they are allowed to connect to the GDN. It will be a central responsibility to ensure that these are respected.
Privacy is a related issue. It is about avoiding unauthorised access to data. This can occur through unauthorised access — commonly known as hacking —into the network and the systems using it; but it can also occur as a result of access to data by authorised users of the network who are, however, not entitled to have access to those particular data. The owners of data must ensure that all access to their data is properly authorised.
As I have said, a GDN does not involve sharing of data between Departments. Nor does it affect the srrangements for controlling and authorising access laid down by statute or regulation or in the form of undertakings given to Parliament. In fact, it strengthens those arrangements in two ways.
First, it will require Departments to write down clear rules on what authorisations may be given, who is empowered to give them, and the audit trails to record access to any particular data. One recent example, which my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary announced to the House in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Berkshire, East (Mr. Mackay) on 27 October last year, was the compilation of access rules for the Inland Revenue's new computer system to modernise and improve tax collection, known as the BROCS project.
Secondly, it will provide information on connections and traffic volumes and maintain control over who is allowed to connect to which computer. These two factors apply whether the access is to data within a Department or to that held by another Department.
I can understand fears of the "big brother" syndrome, though I do not agree with them. For this syndrome to occur, there would have to be a wilful disregard of parliamentary control by users of the network, which I, my Government colleagues and, I believe, the civil servants who work in Departments would not be prepared to tolerate for one instant. This is true whether we have a GDN or not, or indeed whether we use computers or not.
In designing the arrangements for security and privacy for the GDN project, we have drawn on the most appropriate technical expertise available in both Government and the private sector. We have also fully involved the Data Protection Registrar. I met him personally last year to discuss these issues, and have ensured that he is kept fully in touch with our plans, and is content with them. In this field, I believe that the GDN project is setting standards for other networks that we can be proud of.
As my hon. Friend said, the GDN is an exciting project. I have been very impressed by the way in which the companies involved have come forward and addressed its technical and commercial challenges. On the technical side, the proof of this has been the signing of the memoranda of agreement on 11 January. The invitations to tender went to all three consortia today, as my hon. Friend said.
The ground is now set for a good commercial competition. I look forward to the outcome, and hope that the results allow the GDN to go ahead by showing that it provides value for money in meeting the Government's data communication needs.
Finally, I thank my hon. Friend for possibly having contributed to the creation of a parliamentary record by allowing me to speak. In the past three parliamentary days, all five Treasury Ministers have spoken from the Dispatch Box without taking part in a Committee and without answering oral questions as a Department. That might possibly be a record.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at ten minutes past Eleven o'clock.